The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-10-18 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session,ti .. MEMORANDUM October 18, 1983 T0: Town Council FROM: Dick Ryan ~ /~ SUBJECT: Additional comments received on Vail's Community Action Plan: Focus 1985 I have received some comments from three of the members of the coordinating committee since you have received the working plan. Several are slight wording changes, and the only two major comments were to assign specific responsibility, and questioning the need to have seven new task forces or commissions to implement parts of the plan. 1. I consider assigning specific responsibilities for implementation is needed to insure thair the plan ..achieves many of its goals and policies by 1985. That year was recommended by the coordinating committee to provide focus and, to state what should be accomplished by that time. Rich Caplan and I have been through the plan and assigned who we think would be the lead organisations responsible for implementing the specific action. 2. Instead of the following task forces and commissions recommended in the working plan, one recommendation is to assign many of these responsibilities to the coordinating committee. As noted above, a concern by three members of the coordinating committee was the need to have seven task forces or commissions. Coirm Action Plan 10/18/83 -2- A. Social/Cultural/Educational Vail shall strive to develop and improve adolescent and pre-adolescent children's programs, including quality educational programs and alternative recreational and social activities. ° Appoint task force to determine needs The Vail Town Council should appoint an ad hoc six-month committee to study the desirability of establishing a permanent committee on arts and education. The purpose of the committee would be to develop art and education programs both for community enrichment and economic development. B. Parks/Recreation A short term commission shall be created whose function shall be: Evaluate the economic potential of greater use of Dobson Arena as an ice skating facility. ° Research the potential for expanding Vail's economy via new recreational opportnities, i.e. Olympic training facilities, sports medicine ° Evaluate need (or non-reed) of a recreational board ° Explore creative ways of funding recreational programs and facilities C. Economic The summer season must be significantly developed and promoted with new and existiny programs. ° Summer economy task force - VRA, TOV, private sector ° Maximize existing summer related programs, opportunities and facilities ° Study new summer related programs, opportunities and facilities ° Marketing programs to promote season ° Survey of summer guest - URA Development of comprehensive marketing program for the entire Vail area. ° VRA spearheaded task force to develop, fund, and implement program An economic development commission must be established to organize efforts of current and potential economic growth. ° Commission of Town of Vail, Vail Associates, Vail Resort Association and other interested people (5 members) ° iJeed staff assistance to be successful D. Community Design 'Jail should promote and encourage art in public places. ° Establish an ad hoc committee to form a private trust for art in public places ORGANIZATION TOV STAFF 1. PRODUCES DRAFT OF POLICIES 2. TOWN COUNCIL 3• I TASK FORCES 4• ~ COORDINATING COMMITTEE AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS 5• RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT POLICIES POLICY FORMULATION PROCESS TYPE OF INPUT G. Wahrlich advise C. Anderson advise Initial advice and comment Actual policy formulation, prioritization, and recommendations . _ Coordinate policies (prioritize) October General consent to assume responsibility for action on the policy 6• ~ COORDINATING COMMITTEE ~ November AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS ' 7. RESPONSIBLE FOR November CARRYING OUT POLICIES Coordinate and prioritize all policies Final approval and endorsement of policies each is responsible for. Final approval and promotion of plan 8. COORDINATING COMMITTEE End of November via VRA luncheon speaker. Announce citizen workshop. 9. OPEN PUBLIC WORKSHOP December Public comments on plan 10. I COORDINATING COMMITTEE ~ JanuGry 11. TOWN COUNCIL AND. OTHER February ORGANIZATIONS Consider public comment, revise if necessary Adoption of plan 10/i 3/83 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN: FOCUS 1985 Preamble Community leaders of Vail, sensing the serious nature of the economic, social and environmental challenges that face the community in the years ahead, have organized a concerted effort towards planning for Vail's future, rather than waiting for the future to happen. The major focus of the goals and policies are for the next two years. The goal, is to implement as many as possible over the next couple of years. Given its physical configuration and geographical location; its existing programs, facilities and human resources, its recognized markets and its existing product orientation, the Uail community's goals for the next several years should be: 1. To recognize that Vail is moving quickly from a development resort/real estate~~ resort economy, to :a :mature resort community with a stronger economic social base. --Heavy orientation toward marketing the community --Service to guests 2• To confirm, acknowledge, recognize and focus on as its principal community products/services: --Outdoor sports recreation --Social recreation --Business and professional meetings --Education and the arts --The mountain environment --A quality life experience 3• To assure through appropriate mechanisms the continuing public and private maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the community's existing major products and facilities. 4• To develop new or expanded programs in underdeveloped or undeveloped product areas. 5. To effectively market, publicize and promote all community products within the framework of a community marketing program coordinated when possible with appropriate regional programs. 6. To develop, maintain and enhance those community support programs designed to enrich, inspirit and sustain the lives of the employees and residents of the community. 7. To conceive and develop the appropriate sponsoring, funding and management entities required to accomplish the foregoing, involving whatever combination of public, private or nonprofit organizations necessary. to. achieve the :~~ desired ends . ~` 8. To create a community action master plan, the purpose of which is to provide guidelines for action to accomplish the foregoing goals, as well as establish procedures for monitoring progress against agreed-upon criteria for the next two years and beyond. ~~~~ 1~ s `mac LL -z- C~ t2 ~ A ~ ~ ~ ;4-T-~c~/S SOCIAL/CULTURAL/EDUCATIONAL " 1. The community shall strive to improve communications at all,- levels, both with permanent residents and with guests. ° Central clearing house ~_~~C~ ~ Economic information ~~ ° Improve use of radio, TV and print media'~Zj~~/ Weekly and monthly what's ° Kiosks in key locations ~~ ~/ happening in Vail -[-G~/ ° Continue to improve guests. relations programs ~~ 2. The community shall strive to stimulate .and improve ambience within the core areas. ° Street lighting TC~ "~ ° Streetscape planning and design including flowers, landscaping and window treatments.~p ~ ° Street events and entertainment U ~(~ ° Signage --C-p~f Zoning ~~ 3. Vail shall strive to develop and improve adolescent and pre-adolescent children's programs, including quality educational programs and alternative recreationa l and social activities. ° Appoint task force to determine needs 4. Vail should strive to improve and develop as an educational and intellectual center. ° Promote CMC within County ~ ~ ~- ° Research other opportunities for ongoing educational institutions^O \/ ° Promote seminar and conference series ~( {~ ~ ° Support public and private schools 5. The Vail Town Council should appoint an ad hoc six-month committee to study the desirability of establishing a permanent committee on arts and education. The purpose of the committee would be to develop art and education programs both for commun.i:~ty enrichment and economic. development. 6. Every effort shall be made to nurture and foster a sense of community and neighborhood. ° See Community Design ~ ~ ~ 7. Providing for and developing the human, spiritual, physical, social, and mental resources,,..awareness and education programs of the community. ,~::, ° Support drug abuse awareness and education programs ~ ~-~~ ~ ~( ~/,~ ~(_ ° Support mental health programs `ifi(7-- ~,~Rp ° Other social support programs. -3- PARKS/RECREATION 1. Vail shall make every effort to maximize the use of its existing recreational facilities and resources• ° Dobson Ice Arena ~-~ ~ ° Bike paths --~c5~ 1J ° Gore Creek and other streams ~O ~ ° Vail Mountain '11~d~ ° Forest Service 1 ands ~~~~5 ~ 5~~ V tC.C ° Cross country trails ~b-1f ° Eagle County schools ~ ~c.td--~o~ ~rs-r~'~c~-- ° Eagle County ~~ L G ~,~~ 2. Vail;shall recognize the.recreational opportunities that expand its economic base and its .image. Also ,the recreational product must be given effective promotion and exposure. ° produce Vail recreation guide `~~ 1l ° train hotel, restaurant and shop ,employees to promote enthusiastically -all aspects of. the product ~/ ~j~ 3. Vail shall develop a parks and recreation master plan ~- ~ 4. A short term commission shall be created whose function shall be: ° Evaluate the economic potential of greater use of Dobson Arena as an ice skating facility. ° Research the potential for expanding Vail's economy via new recreational opportunities, i.e. Olympic training facilities, sports medicine ° Evaluate need (or non-need) of a recreational board ° Explore creative ways of funding recreational programs and facilities 5• Vail shall be aware of the importance of providing relatively undeveloped open spaces that are easily accessible to the core areas wherein an individual has the opportunity of being "at one with nature" in a quiet, introspective envi-ronment.. Providing the resident and guest with the ability to . "get away from it all" is an important part of a recreation plan. Making it easy for the "non-adventuresome" guest to enjoy in the Village and in the Lionshead core areas the "great outdoors" via easily accessible walking paths and benches along Gore Creek (possibly converting portions of those paths to cross country ski trails) and by making Vail Mountain a summer happening will do much to enhance the Vail recreational product for all ages at a minimal cost for everyone. d .'~ ECONOMIC -4- Real growth. and development is critical for the continued success of Vail as a world class resort. The Vail economy is going through a transformation from a resort/ real estate development to a mature resort service economy. This trend is underscored in the economic policies and must be recognized as a major and important shift and opportunity for emphasizing the resort aspects of Vail. 1. New growth and revitalization is essential for the continued success of Vail. ° Hotel rating system - VRA ° Zoning ordinance, performance zoning and encouragement of .private sector, TOV ° Neighborhood development and planning - TOV _ ° Special improvement district, TOV ° Community master planning, TOV ° Award program for community upgrading of buildings and sites~~© U ° Incentives for employee housing __~_~ 2. The summer season must be significantly developed and promoted with new and existing programs.. ° Summer economy task force - VRA, - ° Maximize existing summer related programs, opportunities and facilities ~J~ ~ ° Study new summer related programs, opportunities and facilities ~2 (~ ° Marketing programs to promote season ~/ 2 t~ ° Survey of summer guest - VRA 3. Other seasons also must be significantly developed and promoted with new and existing programs. ° Expansion of educational and cultural activities -C-b ~ ° Feasibility of convention center ~6~/ ° Complementary alternative businesses ~-2 d~ ° Identify and promote recreation, shopping, etc. ~~..~-- ° Survey of other season guests - VRA 4. Development of Comprehensive Marketing Program for the entire Vail area. ° VRA spearheaded task force to develop, fund, and implement program 5. An economic development commission must be established to organize efforts of current and potential economic growth. ° Commission of Town of Vail, Vail Associates, Vail Resort Association and other interested people (5 members) ° Need staff assistance to be successful 6. Develop reliable economic data base and research for the community ° Determine responsible agency or agencies for achieving the goal (central collection agency) - TOV -5- TRANSPORTATION 1. Maintain, : upgrade and complete streets, drainage, bike paths, street lights, signs within the community. ~-o `/ ° Develop financial mechanism to improve streets ~~ 2. Continue quality bus system within Vail -C~~/ 3• Study and develop solutions to problem areas. ~~/ ° Four-way stop ~~ ° East Lionshead Circle ~15~/ ° Golden Peak -~~ 4• The Town shall continue to review parking needs within the community to determine when and where additional parking shall be provided. ~~ g, In ,the Vail ViJ;lage and _Vai] Lionshead. areas, ;the Town shall ,continue to explore new technology in fixed systems or other alternative systems to determine when such a system is economically feasible for the community. .-~--~f 6• Promote and develop transportation modes from Stapleton Airport to Uail. V'~~;~ 7. Explore upper Eagle Valley transportation system and determine when feasible to implement. U ~~ L~ L-~ ~L~ V~4Z.LL ~ 7~f~~Us ~,D~ry 8. Explore air and rail problems and opportunities to Vail and Colorado. ~~p._ 9. Provide a long term funding mechanism for transportation systems -r-a -6- COMMUNITY DESIGN 1. Detailed physical planning should take place to insure land use decisions are made on a planned informed basis. ° Develop community master plan for the entire Gore Valley t ~ ° Develop neighborhood plans -~~/ ° Create community and neighborhood design guidelines Tom ° Landscape plan for community --~/ ° Increased utilization of parks and open s ace land. ~~/ ° Parks and recreation master plan ° Vail Mountain Master Plan ~~ 2. Vail should promote and encourage art in public places. ° Establish an ad hoc committee to form a private trust for art in public places 3. Upgrading and remodeling of structures should be encouraged within the restrictions and opportunities of the zoning code. ° Revise zoning code to promote upgrading and remodeling through such techniques as performance zoning. ~ / 4. The Town should support the addition of a manager's/employee housing unit in the condominium projects (which contain 15 or more dwelling units and .. hotels) which would be restricted to employee housing via meeting the following conditions: ° change zoning code 5. The Town of Uail should include prov isions in its zoning code to allow density bonuses on properties onn whr~ ployee housing projects are proposed. ° develop criteria 6. Establish a process for the identification of neighborhoods and for the planning and enhancement of each neighborhood. ° Inform them of zoning and land use decisions in neighborhood ° Private/public joint venture program --j-~./ 7. Maintenance and upkeep shall be a priority of individual property owners and the TOV. - / ° Complete the last 10% of landscaping and site improvements. ~O v ° Public/private programs for improvements -~~/ ° Special improvement districts -C- a~ 8. The Town of Vail in conjunction with Vail Associates shall formalize VA's land dedication to the Town of Vail ° Process has started. `~~1/ -7- 9. The Town will continue to preserve lands of unique natural features as open space or park land to enhance the quality of life in Vail. 1Q. Acquisition of key parcels of land will be a priority of the Town through purchase of development rights, fee simple gif s and/or purchases and other measures financially feasible. '~- 11. Entryways to the Town and to neighborhoods shall be enhanced through landscaping and identification signs that complement the environment. ~V- 12. The Town shall respond to natural infestations of the environment. ~Zri~ 13. Ualley-wide landscaping plan -~~ 14. Gore Creek and tributaries plan ~-~--~ UTILITIES/PUBLIC SERVICES -8- 1. The Town shall work with the utility companies toward the burying of all above ground utility distribution and service lines and all new utility distribution and service lines shall be located underground. ~ / 2. The Town shall work with the utility companies in order to develop contingency plans in the event of an outage or lack of availability of the various public service utility systems. .~-~ 3. The Town should institute a system to regulate the design and placement of all utility systems in order to provide for safety, aesthetics, and other factors affecting the welfare of the community. r-~-~ 4. The Town shall continually provde the various public ser~fice companies with a data base (specifically development statistics) in order to provide them with an adequate measure of present and future demands. __~__~ / WATER USE/WATER QUALITY 1. Surface water and underground water quality and quantity and related ecosystems should be protected from degradation. lea-~-~ -~~S-T-~~C~-- 2. The Town should encourage the use of water saving devices and techniques wi thi n existing and proposed developments. ___~,-,~ ~~, 3. The Town should oppose water diversions that adversely affect its citizens or the environment. 4. Minimum stream flows shall be determined and maintained. (,()f~~~ `~isT~/cam' 5. Water storage reservoirs and other water projects shall promote the most beneficial and efficient use of water resources within the area, LV ~ iz.-~2. ?~ f S1 ~/CT- 6. The Town shall work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to improve the fish and wildlife habitat of Gore Creek and the other streams within the Gore Val ley. ~~.~~ ~ ~ 5-r-~ ~~,~ 7. The Town shall continue to work with the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts in order to ensure the continued provision of water _ and sanitation services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. ~ ~ ~, AIR QUALITY 1. The Town shall continue to monitor the air quality within the Gore Valley, and study and implement air quality control measures when deemed appropriate and necessary. ^~O l~ lows o 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 T0: Town Council office of community development FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Request by PEC to attend the meeting regarding the request to amend SDD #6, the Vail Village Inn DATE: October 21, 1983 On Monday the PEC starts with a field trip at 11:30AM to review sites under consideration for the public hearing part of the meeting. Then a study session on Golden Peak and at 2:OOPM, the public hearing on SDD #6. Please plan to attend. MEMORANDUM October 20, 1983 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to rezone the Amoco service station site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation zone district, and to incorporate the site into Special Development District #6. Also, to amend the Special Development District height section, plan, to increase the gross residential residential floor area allowable, to modify professional and business offices, theaters, meeting rooms:, convention facilities and commercial parking facilities from conditional uses to permitted uses, to request an exemption for parking, to permit additional floor area for commercial uses, and other minor changes. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. The request by Piccidilly Square has many parts to come up with a new plan for Phase IV and V. 200 accommodation units, three employee housing of commercial uses in Phase IV. In Phase V are units and 1,950 square feet of commercial uses. structure containing 234 parking spaces. and they The appli~ units and ten condo In Phase are ail interrelated giant is requesting 14,800 square feet units, three employee IV there is a parking First, to rezone the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet from Heavy Serivice to Public Accommodation zoning. In addition, to amend Special Development District #6 to include this property within the District. Second, to amend the Special Development District to permit new Phases IV and V. A. To allow as permitted uses wihin the Special Development District, professional and business offices; meeting rooms and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities. B. To amend the lot area and site dimension from 3.445 acres to 3.995 acres. C. To delete the section concerning the distance between buildings. D. To amend the height section and add: "In no event shall the average height exceed the proposed development plan." E. To amend the density control section from 100,000 square feet of gross residential floor area to 172,201 square feet. Also, to permit additional floor area for commercial type uses. F. For an exemption to the parking requirements for the site and to remove the request for parking of charter buses on site. SDD6 -2- 10/20/83 I. STATISTrr.s A. Site Area Site area of current SDD #6 3.455 Amoco site .54 Site area of proposed amended SDD #6 3.995 B. Gross Residential Floor Area GRFA approved in original SDD #6 Additional GRFA requested amended SDD #6 C. Accommodation Units Proposed Phase IV D. Dwelling units proposed Phase IV E. Dwelling units proposed Phase V F. Commercial space proposed Phase IV G. Commercial space Phase V II. BACKGROUND 100,000 sq ft 72,201 sq ft 200 ~ employee housing units 10 condos, + 3 employee units 14,800 sq ft 1,950 sq ft Reaching through the extensive record of the Vail Village Inn, there has been a great deal of time, thought, and design effort devoted to_achieving the plan for Special Development District #6. Major site planning and building location planning work was done by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey to come up with a plan that has been executed consistently in Phase I, II and III. III. REVIEW OF THE ISSUES The Community Development Department will focus on zoning and some site issues of the approved and proposed amended SDD6. Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates has presented in the attached memorandum an analysis of the approved SDD6, and views, mass, bulk and site planning issues of the proposed amendment. First, the staff would complement the architect's design solution developed for the applicant's program. The staff's concerns -center around whether or not the program of 200 rooms and the size of accommodation units is funda- menta lly too large for the site remaining. This is the key intersection i-n Vail and one of the visitors' first experiences once leaving Interstate 70. What. takes place at this location probably will set the initial experience of the visitor. SDD6 ` ,. _3- 10/20/83 AMOCO SITE The request is to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to the Public Accommodation zone district. In addition, to include the property into the proposed amended SDD6. The site contains approximately 23,522 square feet of land. If the property were rezoned to Public Accommodation, the applicant could receive up to approximately 18,817 square feet of GRFA and up to 27 accommodation units. Including this property into the Special Development District does not mean the applicants automatically get all the GRFA and accommodation units. This is up to the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend an SDD they consider works or does not work to Town Council. If the property is not rezoned and remains Heavy Service, there are several options for the owner. First, a service station could remain at the site. Second, the owner could request a different use of the site. All uses a_re conditional uses in this zone district. This is the only zone district in the Town of Vail zoning code where all uses are conditional. In requesting a conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influence. For some time, the staff considered including the Amoco site into SDD6. It seemed that it would improve this corner of the major entrance into Vail, and including. it into the Vail Village Inn would probably make the SDD an improved project. We now have second thoughts because of the magnitude of the proposal that is before the Planning and Environmental Commission. A.positive aspect of this proposal to include the Amoco site is the possibility for an improved landscaped entry way into Vail. Again, we question the advantage to the community with the proposal that is presented. DENSITY The approved Special Development District #6 density section states "The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in the special district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall not exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred." Existing on site if the proposed Phase IV were constructed is the following: Phase II 3,515 GRFA Phase III 50,000 GRFA Building 5 16,585 GRFA 70,100 GRFA SDD 6 -4- 10/20/83 This would leave approximately 29,900 of GRFA remaining udner the approved SDD 6 for Phase IV. The request is to receive full credit for the Amoco site of approximately 18,817 square feet of GRFA. The amended proposal requests a total GRFA for the entire SDD of 168,318 square feet, plus an additional 3,700 square feet of GRFA for six employee units. At the time the SDD was created the site could have received as a use by right in the Public Accommodation District up to 120,000 square feet of GRFA * The request was for only 100,000 square feet of GRFA because there was agreement that the plan proposed SDD6 worked well for the site. It has been stated that the owner was assured he could have additional GRFA if needed. It is our interpretation that at best, he could have received an additional 20,000 square feet of GRFA. Another argument presented by the applicant in the Town advantages and VVI advanates is "trading commercial for GRFA." First, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends to Town Council any amendment to a Special Development District. The applicant does not at this time have an approved plan with substantial commercial floor area approved. The Town has discretion over the amount of commercial floor area to be approved or not approved under a Special Development District. Another point of discussion with the proposal is the number of accommodation units to be allowed. The approved density section of SDD6 states, "If the total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed 300." There are 29 condo- minium units in Phase II, so it seems the 300 accommodation units is not allowed or valid anymore. The staff considers GRFA as a major issue to be resolved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The amount of GRFA impacts the height, mass anal bulk of the proposed Phase IV and the future Phase U. We feel that the proposal demonstrates that there is substantially more GRFA requested than can work on the site. CONDITIONAL USES Requested by the applicant is to allow professional and business offices; theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities as permitted uses within the Special Development District. The applicant states "such uses are an integral part of the hotel operation and fulfills the mixed use intent of the SDD. Secondly, these uses are compatible with established patterns of uses on the site, the neighborhood and the commercial centers of the community." In the Public Accommodation district, conditional uses are: "A. Professional and business offices; E. Theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities; and, F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures." * Footnote: Ordinance #8 of 1973 in the Public Accommodation District under Density Control states: "Not more than 80 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area." This was the density rule at the time of approval of SDD6. SDD6 -5- 10/20/83 T.he staff recommends that all of these conditional uses remain. First, we feel that professional and business offices should be in zones where they are basically a use by right. This area of Vail should primarily be commercial shops. If a tenant wanted a professional or business office, this ,should come through the normal conditional use process which applies to the Public Accommodation zone district. Second, we feel that theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities should remain as conditional use. The Planning and Environmental Commission should review the impacts of these facilities on a site by site basis. If some of these uses are proposed now, for consistency and adequate study, they should be processed through the conditional use permit process. Third, We feel public or commercial parking facilities or structures should also be reviewed through the conditional use permit process. The impacts of a public or private structure on .the 4-way, Vail Road and other streets in the area should be considered. One concern is with additional congestion on the streets in this area of Town. LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSION Proposed is to increase the lot area of the SDD from 3.445 to 3.995 acres. The staff does not recommend this amendment. For detail, see the section dealing with the Amoco site. If amended Section 3 of SSS6 would also need to be amended. to reflect the additiional land. HEIGHT The request is to change the height section of the SDD so that the conceptual language of the SDD is brought into conformity with the actual development plan. The approved SDD has areas. noted for number of stories and ranges of height. The staff will present this plan at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. As noted in the height section of SDD it states: The intent of the height limits and ranges is that the building complex should be as low as possible. At this level of detail it is not realistic to tie down a precise maximum elevation. Final designs with regard to elevation will depend upon further detail study and projection of the building mass onto photos of the actual site conditions. The massing respects the spirit of what is desired and final heights will be established based on final decision. The shopping intent is to maintain the village quality and to maintain the two story elevations as the predominant height. This height can very upward or downward by half a level. The staff does not consider that the proposal meets the intent of the approved SDD. Along the frontage road the highest element is 65 feet. On Vail Road the highest element is approximately 55 feet to 75 feet in height. We feel that this is not in scale with the major entry to Vail, and the pedestrian 10/20/83 SDD 6 -6- area on East Meadow Drive. The height proposed on the frontage road also impacts the approved view corridor. PARKING Proposed on the plans submitted for review are 234 spaces enclosed under the hotel in Phase IV. The lowest level contains 81 spaces, the upper level 129 spaces, and the plaza level 24 spaces. Also remaining are eight surface parking spaces. Existing in Phase III are 109 parking spaces. With the proposal if approved and built, there would be 343 spaces on the site. At the time SDD6 was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council the exact number of on-site spaces was not determined. An environmental impact report was submitted after approval of the SDD. The report recommended 200 cars .be considered as a parking requirement. Our records indicate that .this recommendation was never officially part of SDD6. We feel that the proposed number of 343 spaces are adequate for the site. We would support a parking exemption for SDD6. The applicant has not shown anagreern~nt from the Phase III condominium association for use of this entry and exit for the parking propsed in Phase IV. There are knock out walls in Phase III that connect ,with Phase IV. Without use of the frontage road entrance and exit the staff questions the traffic impact on Vail Road since this could be the only entry and exit for Phase IV parking. Also part of SDD6 was the provision for charter bus parking. The staff recommends removing this requirement from the SDD as there seems to be sufficient charter bus parking areas curretnly within the town. The staff is concerned with the loading, delivery and garbage facilities pro~o5ed. We have first of all not seen sufficient detail on how it would work and whether the turning movements work. There are several stores and restaurants in SDD6. We are concerned that there be a sufficient number of loading areas for a development of this scale. SDD7 -7- 10/20/83 PURPOSE OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Special Development District #6 states as the purpose for this are: Section 4. Purpose of Special Development District. A special development district is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail, Colorado, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town; ordinarily a special district will be created only when the development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning, and the development regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. A change to this section of SDD#6 was not proposed by the applicant. The staff considers that what is being proposed is in direct conflict with the purpose. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This memorandum is not going to go through a detail. point by point analysis of the environmental impact report. In our view these are some conflicting statements and additional documentation is needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposal to rezone the Amoco site, include in an amended Special Development District #6 and the other amendments for the SDD. The major concern is the magnitude of the proposal and what the impacts are on: the South Frontage Road and Vail Road. Specifics regarding each element of our recommendation are noted in the memorandum. S" WINSTON ASSOCIATES PLANNING AND LANDSCAPEARCHlTECTURE MEMORANDUM October 18, 1983 T0: Dick Ryan, Director Department of Community Development FROM: Jeff Winston RE: Vail Village Inn Phase IV/V Review Memorandum WINSTON ASSOCIATES. INC. 910 TWENTY EIGHTH STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80303 (303)440-9200 Perhaps it goes without saying that this site is one of, if not the, pre-eminant sites in Vail Village. It is important to consider the development proposal carefully, for this site will create first impressions of Vail for the forseeable future. The proposal is a complex one to review, ..for there are many opposing aspects to consider. Our intent here is to outline and structure the relevant physical considerations important to a final decision. As a point of beginning, we are not dealing with a first-time proposal on a new site. This is a hale of a larger project, the criteria for which were established in 1976 in the form of a Special Development District agreed to by the owner and the Town. The SDD criteria included: 1, establishment of maximum overall average heights; Z. specific height restrictions to preserve views of the Golden Peak slopes; 3. massing of the building to step it down to pedestrian scale at the ends (adjacent to East Meadow Drive) These criteria have been followed with each phase constructed so far. The current proposal represents a departure from the SDD criteria, according to the proponent for two significant reasons: 1. The desire for larger hotel rooms to be competitive in today's resort hotel market; and 2. The acquisition of the Amoco site, originally excluded from the SDD, not only adds more developable area, but also alters the form of the project. As a result, the proponents are, in effect requesting that the SDD criteria be signi- ficantly amended or replaced with new criteria which they feel are more appropriate. Essentiallyy, the initial question for Planning Commission (and eventually Council) is: Was,(is) the original SDD criteria valid for the design of the site? That is, are the view corridor, building height and stepping-down criteria still important for the Town entry? If so, the SDD criteria should be adhered to vigorously. Page 2 SDD CRITERIA Our analysis of the Vail Village Inn proposed Phase IV and V indicates it does not meet the original SDD criteria in at least three basic respects: a. View Corridors The SDD was rather explicit in identifying a specific view to preserve: the view of Golden Peak ski slopes. These are the broadest, closest ski slopes with high visibility of individual skiers. This view was felt to be an important welcome to the ski community. The SDD even noted the width of the view and the maximum heights of buildings to preserve it. It should be noted however, that a study done by the proponent shows that some of the lower Golden Peak slopes would have been lost even with the existing criteria. It would still have preserved a substantial portion of the view. The question that is raised then is, is the view that is left significant enough to preserve? Admittedly, there are many opportunities to view ski slopes approaching Vail on I-70. And perhaps it can be argued that at the 4-way it is more important to orient drivers than to distract them with skier views. We maintain, however, that open, close views of the mountains contribute to a first impression of Vail upon arrival--its mountain setting, skiing as an activity, etc.--and that by obscuring this totally, Vail loses something. Taken individually, there are perhaps other views, but they are an important resource not to be given away lightly. The SDD height criteria did not specifically address other views for preservation, but the southwest wing of Phase IV also is much higher than the four stories suggested in the SDD, and this portion tends to block a significant portion of the mountain straight ahead from the 4-way stop. b. Overall Massing/Height Without regard to the view corridors mentioned above, the proposed project appears to be generally consistent with the massing suggested in the SDD, with one significant exception. The original SDD indicated that the building should gradually step down from Phase III to the 4-way stop corner. The proposal generally complies. According to the SDD, the next section south along Vail Road may rise back up to four stories. Again, the proposal is generally consistent. The final southwest section is where the most significant departure occurs. The SDD suggests that this section should step back down to 'Village scale' at the southwest corner. In fact the original review notes by Eldon Beck (1976) indicated this to be an extremely important corner from a pedestrian standpoint. The proposal for Phase IV continues to rise several stories, leaving a south facing elevation of seven stories plus dormers--up to 80 feet in height. Page 3 True enouth, Phase V as proposed does make the step down transition to a more pedestrian scale adjacent to East Meadow Drive, and it even screens the south wing o.f Phase IV so some extent, which is helpful. But the net result is still an extremely large face (higher than the Westin) overlooking the park, the intersection and Vail Road. In our opinion, this section of the building far exceeds the SDD guidelines and has a negative and overpowering impact on the surrounding area. c. Service and Delivery Lastly, we have some concerns about the adequacy of the service/delivery areas which will ultimately be provided. The turn-around space for trucks has not been adequately demonstrated, and the adequacy of one loading dock to serve the entire VVI complex needs documenting. On balance, while we commend the program to the site, we feel that essentially sound with respect to we feel that the Golden Peak view equa lly or even more important is corner of the building. excellence of the design in fitting the proponent's the original SDD's objectives were, and remain, this major entrance into Vail. Specifically, corridor is still important, but perhaps the pedestrian scale necessary at the southwest If because of the new circumstances of the Amoco site being included and larger room sfizes, it is desirable to re-examine the proposal on its own terms, without applying the original SDD criteria, we would offer the following analysis: 1. Views The proponents have focussed on Riva and in fact have gone to some detail to frame and enhance Riva Ridge as a substitute Riva for Golden Peak, the Although the view from the 4-way stogy not unpleasant. Ridge rather to lower the focal point. architecture ~ is not as it than on Golden Peak, building at the corner If one is willing to has been massed effectively. nmediate, it is certainly 2. Building massing appearance--from the 4-way stop and frontage road Unlike the Phase III and the Crossroads building, Phase IV does not turn its back on the frontage road but rather presents a formal 'front door' -which is positive. ., We find this section of the building generally appropriate with some minor suggestions. The building is generally broken up, both vertically and horizontally, stepping down from the tall Phase III building to a pedestrian scale near the intersection. The result is positive, but with still some overemphasis on 'bigness'. Page 4 The roof eave line has been lowered to lessen the apparent height of the building, but the many dormers and particularly the two story arches reinforce the large scale and length of the main building with no break. We find the main block of Phase IV somewhat overpo wring in this regard. We would prefer to see this five story section shorter in length. Also in comparison with Phase III and the Crossroads building, we feel there could be more vertical elements, shorter horizontal wall distances. The park being provided at the 4-way is an effective visual buffer if properly landscaped and a significant contribution to the intersection. 3. Building appearance from Vail Road Looking down Vail Road, the building rises backup and becomes very masssive, particularly when compared to Holiday Inn opposite.' This blocks a large section of mountain. We feel strongly that this section of the building should be stepped down with the land as it drops gradually toward East Meadow Drive. This would keep the north wing on the frontage road as the major mass, and let the southwest corner be more in scale wi~.h the park and shops on East Meadow Drive. The closeness to Vail Road, we feel is not a great problem, particularly if the southernmost wing is lower in height. The closing down on Vail Road helps reduce its attractiveness to auto traffic and helps enclose the 4-way intersection on one side and East Meadow Drive on the other. We feel a.large part of the problem here may be due to the presence of the Deli building which forces the building higher and closer to the road. We suggest that study be given to the possibility of delaying the southern- most section until Phase V after the Deli building is removed, when it can be incorporated more comfortably. 4. The most dominant impression from this vantage is the overwhelming height of the southwest wing, over twice the height of the present Deli building. This is the. section of the building which should make the transition back down to the pedestrian level of the park. From in front of the Kiandra, this building mass is a major impact, over 80 feet in height. There is also concern about the interim situation with the Deli building remaining for ten years-- the tight space and poor transition. We suggest that each phase should be self sufficient, capable of staying that way indefinitely. Phases I, II, and III essentially met that criteria. The Phase V building does make an effective transition down to the shop . level, but doesn't entirely mitigate the effect of Phase IV. 5. Internal court yard appearance of building This is perhaps more a refinement of the plan than a central issue. There is a genera] sense of not relating well to Phase III. Phase IV not having a 'broken up' or an articulated mass of the rest of the complex. Granted, a hotel structure as a whole imposes some rigidity, but we don't sense the stepping forward-and-back on the south side as dramatically even as on the north side of the building. The result is more a 'grand hotel' impression, quite high, with some difficulty in relating the pedestrian feel of Phase I/II shops. This, we feel, is addressable through the use of materials, attention to the arches and other details (more suitable for DRB discussion, perhaps. PEC 9/26/83 1 11. Request for amendments to SDD 6 (Vail Village Inn) to increase GRFA allowable, modify permitted and conditional uses, request a parking exemption, modify language concerning height restrictions, expand commercial space allowable. Furthermore, a'rezoning request for the existing Amoco station site to rezone from Heavy Service to Public Accommodations and to be included in the Vail Village Inn SDD #6 district. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. Peter Jamar will give the final staffjpresentation at this time. Actually we've got seven requests that came in the memo & just came across three more during today's meeting & that's one of the reasons for recommending that this thing be tabled but have made some preliminary comments. ;As they speak in the memo per a proposal was given to us late last Wednesday and we feel that a' project of this scope certainly needs some adequate staff review. To~date we truly haven't even received all that is required by SDD Ordinance, but we fielt that since this was such a large project, we ought to go through the review. I ;know the applicants would like to get a vote today. But we felt that we ought to ait least preliminarily, in our minds, address what the issues are so that we can at ;least hopefully detail today that the appli- cants will be given some direction in ;terms of the issues or the items that they're asking for. So I will just basically Ito through no. 7 and again, there are three additional, which I'll go through at the end. The first request, as Dan stated, is to rezone AMOCO gas station site to the Special Development District #6 which underlines zone district no. This is a 25.55 roughly acres that allow and 9 square feet of GRFA and 27 in combination units. The appl7cantsare opposed to incorporate this density into the existing density which was formed in 1976 and we believe that this will eliminate the gas station entrance to the Vail community and the staff at this time is supportive of that idea. We feel that they have those properties basically developed within the city guidelines and certainly of the community. The applicants site; planning and plan to have that basically kind of park-type atmosphere at the entrance is certainly a positive aspect of the proposal. We do believe, however, that 19,000 sq: ft. GRFA & 27 units that would be certainly shouldn't be taken as a given. That site zone is for heavy service right now, basically for heavy use on that site & we don't particularly buy the applicants argument that they can come in & put a massive office building on that corner. We feel that in the same sense, the re-zoning on that property ought to be whatever is appropriate in terms'of the intent of the existing SDD. Part of the purpose that SDD #6 states that, I'll just quote out of here. It says ordin- arily "a special development district shall be created only when the development i i PEC 9/26/83 2 density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning. We feel that of this site, that the applicant can't necessarily demonstrate that that zone fits in with the existing SDD & possibly the density ought to be cut down somewhat. Second request is to, bottom part of the density control section of SDD #6 to allow total GRFA 172,015 sq. ft. rather than 100,000 that the original SDII allows. They feel that that number of accommodation units & number of dwelling units ought to limit the density on that site. The original STP says that if the total GRFA is going to accommo- dation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed 300 the staff & the applicants. We interpret that where it says it shall not exceed 300, they're saying that they're allowed 300. We're saying that in no event should that. number go over 300 regardless of what GRFA has already been used. If you take that 172,000 sq: ft. requested as a total, then take out the 19,000 sq. ft. from the potential PA zoning, Amoco property, that'll leave us 53,006 sq. ft. that the applicants are in effect asking ;for variance on the That proposal would consist of 200 rooms in phase 4, 10 condominiums in phase 5, and 6 units do some deciding. ,The staff's ;preliminary recommendation on this is that we cannot at all support the 53,000 additional sq. ft. of GRFA. That's half again what the original SDD allowed in terms of 100,;000. There are some view corridor problems and some problems that I'll point out in~a minute, with the original intent of the allo- cation of and mass on the site which cannot be met on the current proposal. We believe that major problems, that the ;occupants are just trying to put too many sq. ft. on the site. We would support limited employee housing which the applicants are proposing 6 units. We would support employee housing necessary for the operation of the lodge. Basically, again, I think we've demonstrated that handled on the site consistent with the original intent of the SDD. Their request is to add professional business off ices,itheaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities, commercial parking facilities; as used within the SDD. We would recommend that theater, meeting room & convention facilities are already used & should be per- mitted & they are unnecessary for the function of a lodge compatible with that use. We feel that professional business officeis are inappropriate for the site & also at this time we support the parking facilities; however, we feel that at some point this is constructive in this configuration, that it could support commercial parking in terms of the VVI allowing people to come in & once the Lionshead structure & the structure goes up to allow some limited parking in this structure. We feel, due to the nature of the operation, a hotel, taking a look at the existing phase III of the PEC 9/26/83 3 UVI parking is 50% utilized in that structure. But I think it would be a mistake until the use pattern of that facility would be evaluted before we go ahead & allow them at this time. The fourth request basically is coupled with that. This project would require 396 spaces & the occupants have requested that only 300 spaces be supplied. Supportive of that exemption from the parking requirement and again, we believe, that due to the nature of this project that full amount is required. The fifth request is to eliminate the requirement that's in the SDD for parking & chartered buses. The applicants feel that since there are areas to the east of the village parking structure, I guess Gold Peak would be another one, & areas where charter buses can be parked, that they feel they'do not need to provide them on the site. We would agree with that as requested. There ought to be in that loading area, on & off the frontage road to unload buses. The sixth request is to eliminate the;heighth restrictions of the SDD. They're worried about the wording, that type of height restriction in the Gold Peak proposal... (end of Tape #5 of 8). At the time the development for SDD 6,was adopted in 1976, most were pretty detailed recommendations was done in terms of building mass, sections were drawn & also this area was designated, this map has designated areas. What I've done is basically super- impose on to the current site development plan, this plan here, to see how it corres- - ponds to each other. For instance area A was a 5-story mass, when then was phase 3, which basically has' So the B areas are step-dwon areas, supposed to be basically 3-story. Area B in this area, was meant to be a 3-story maximum. Area C, a 4-story maximum. Those were all delineated basically to preserve this view of the ski slopes from the 4-way stop which you can't see very well from this picture, which the staff more or less interpreted as Gold Peak. 'The applicants wish to amend that & basically preserve the view. We do not feel that, again mass with this proposal should be taken as a given, the property above this view corridor or adja- cent. basically, the original SDD allowed the range or type of south- west of the property, the step-down area D, the intersection of Vail Road & Gore Creek Drive to a height of 63 feet, which would be phase 3, the northwest portion of phase 3. The applicants are proposing that current porposal range from approximately 35 ft. to a maximum of 80 ft. Keep in mind that the original public accommodation facili- ties at the time the SDD was adopted, allowed the average height of 45 ft. We do not in any way support the modification of the height requirements. We feel that it is an important view, at the entrance to Vail, that Gold Peak is much more significant PEC 9/26/83 4 than the view of Riva Ridge in proximity of the mountain, And we feel the closeness is ~in the village to the skiers on Gold Peak, rather than seeing Riva Ridge way out from a distance is important & I would encourage the Planning Commissioners, if this does get tabled, between now & the next review, to really, the staff can copy these off for you. If you really look backward, there was a lot of thought given to this SDD & there's files full of memos which really outline the reason for all these height & mass studies. We believe the intent of this SDD should remain in terms of the view corridor. The seventh request is that the applicants be allowed to extend commercial facili- ties to encourage the flow of pedestrian traffic within and troughout the public plazas & spaces throughout the project. The SDD allows a total of 47,000 sq. ft. of commer- cial space; currently approximately 39,195 sq. ft. exists. It would basically lock off 800 sq. ft. commercial space. The applicants are proposing 16,750 sq. ft. in addition of commercial space between phase 4 and 5. We believe that additional commercial space is important, especially to allow the flow through the proposed village & plaza area & also the connection to the Holiday Inn to work, is probably going to need additional commercial space per floor. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a higher plaza level needs to be commercial space. When you think about phase 3 of the Village Inn to the east of the pool area, there is landscaped area in the 1st level, which is right off the front of some of the condominiums which does work pretty- weli, so we would basically support limited expansion of commercial space but only to the extent that it makes pedestrian travel throughout the area worthwhile. The three other minor changes that are also being requested that I just mentioned, are basically to change wording in the SDD to allow, including the Amoco site, which would bring it to the area, comprising SDD of 4.005 acres. That basically effects two of the sections in the SDD language. And the other would be just the distance between buildings language contained in the SDD. says at it should be indicated on the development plan & not. less than 60 feet from building to Repealing that request. Those are the issues & probably each one of those issues would take a meeting in itself. I certainly hope we can table the items today so that the staff can have a full review period to review the current proposal. As I said, there are several re- quirements that are contained in each phase of the SDD. One would be the environmental impact report or supplement to the original environmental impact report resubmitted. This has not been done for this case & as a matter of fact it takes three supplements to environmental impact report to basically pass the buck on several issues on to phase 4 and 5 & since these can be dealt with in phase 4 and 5, the environmental impact state- ment. So we have not received an environmental impact report. The language that PEC 9/26/83 5 in the SDD says the next phase of the development has to be reviewed by an outside con- sultant. The consultant has not been reviewing previous proposals, but, again, not reviewed this part of the proposal which we received Wednesday. The third item would be the preliminary landscape plan must be submitted. We have several concerns that we haven't been able to get into up into this point in terms of traffic impacts on Vail Road, the exits to the parking garages. We're very concerned about the relationship of the existing building 5 in terms of service delivery & how that's going. to work with the other parts of the project. Just the functionality of the plaza, whether it's wide enough, and many other aspects which haven't been addressed in the short time we've had the review. I guess I skipped over a little bit about what it is exactly they're proposing in terms of numbers of stories and numbers of rooms, but I think Gordon will probably go pretty fairly through that & I would like the opportunity to have his presentation to get a little bit more specific about some of the height. Dan Corcoran - Who's going to be representing the applicants? (Joe Staufer) Joe, first off, I'd like to ask a question. Is it indeed your intent to proceed to try to get a vote on this today? Joe Staufer - We would like to get a vote today. It depends on how everybody feels after we go through the steps. Dan Corcoran.- I think that discussion with board members earlier has been that we do - want an informative discussion and session on this with some facts and figures. Maybe that discussion will settle in enough peoples' minds to go ahead and vote, so I guess we'll go ahead and proceed with your presentation. Joe Staufer - My name is Joe Staufer and I'm the owner of Vail Village Inn and I guess a partial applicant because I still own the property, and I will be and probably will remain as the manager of the property fora while and be part of the commission of the sale of the property which is 200 hotel rooms which I say some would allow. I have to ask you to bear a little bit with me because I need to give a little history of how we got where we are today and how it all started. This may be a little boring in the beginning, you may get the reaction, what do these facts and figures have to do with me, but it's very pertinent that we understand how this Special Development District was formed. We bought, our company bought Vail Village Inn in June of 1969. The prior owners had lost from $100,000-300,000 a year for seven years in a row and they were just ready to get out. We came in and we were able to cut those losses down to $100,000 a year and after three years, we decided we can't stand that kind of loss either & we then sold the Vail Village Inn. We are, and I apologize to you people have heard it before, but it's important that everybody knows about it - we put the PEC 9/26/83 6 property on the market for $2.5 million. It was on the market for approximately a year- and-a-half to two years. We were unable to sell it. At that point I went to I went to Bill Ruoff who just came to town and started an architectural practice and said check into this whole thing and check what we can do with the property. We can't go on losing money, we have to look into developing business. I'm not a developer and I hated the thought, but what can we do with the property? Bill Ruoff came back and said Well, the saw me. You can build somewhere around 400 to 450 rooms. I said well, at the present we have a building here and 4 buildings up here, there's a dirt parking lot right down here, why don't we explore the possibilities of building a building here with commercial on the road and we'll charge them for parking on the ground.. He came back with a scheme that would allowed for about 120 rooms here and 5 stories with commercial on East Meadow Drive. The start of all of it and I have here from the start to verify some question from him later on. All of that proposal, which was strictly had been existing else and said Oh gosh, oh please don't do that.. We are working with, Allen Beck was in town who was a full- time consultant and why don't you let us work something out for you that makes just as much sense for you, but doesn't impact the town the way this thing would impact the town. We are trying to pedestrianize the whole area, now this is the staff talking, and we feel that if you give us a chance to trade off with you, little stories up down here, we'll let you put the height in the back here where it doesn't impact anybody. As a matter of fact, at that time the staff believed that height put back was a good thing because it would insulate the pedestrian area of the traffic flows. I went to start work on it, .they worked with the architect and we came with what you see now, the Special Development District No. 6. We went ahead in '76 and put those commercial buildings in and then in '78 we put phase 2 in which are those two little buildings behind that again I had to contact at a cost in phase 2 that in the last 200 years I wouldn't make a dime because we were committed to the town on a plan that would give us a trade back here where the road is. That's where we would get our density, that's where we would make up what we basically are giving up down here. At that time, that whole atmosphere of the town staff, council, everybody, was down zoning, down zoning, down zoning. As long as we down zoned we'd be all right. I was in V.A. zoned, the staff at that time suggested that all VA zones get down zoned by 40%. That's better than 100,000 sq. ft. The SDD was the down zoning again & again & again said, I want to build a quality hotel. I cannot build 300 quality rooms in 100,000 Don't worry about it, Joe. You look at the guy that said it. You have to come back anyway every phase by the special district, you have to come back to us. And we're just, it won't ever make sense, that 100,000 sq. ft. At no time, PEC 9/26/83 7 did I then say, if you don't down zone VA 40%, I want to be stuck with 100,000 sq. ft. And then VA down zoned maybe only 30%. As it happened, VA did get down zoned 20% and we now have an 8% relationship between length mass & building mass. I should have come back then and there and said, well they only down zoned VA X %, so my village ought to be readjusted. Everything was fine, except that I did not count on having two on the staff. And that did happen and I was relying on what the staff at that time said I should rely on. That section 14 of the Ordinance which says that: Limition of existence of special development in district 6 prior to the adoption of the approved development plan. The Town Council reserves to the town the right to aggregate, abbrogate or multiply special development district no. 6 for good cause through the enactment of ordinance, provided, however, that in the event Town Council finds it appropriate to to abbrogate or multiply SDD 6, the procedures shall be in accordance with Article. Anyway, the staff says, I can rely on 2 things. 1 is that I will not be treated than any other VA zone otherwise it could be zoning. They, maybe to rely on this article that .says that we can, if it makes sense, to trust it, they also made me rely that to come back & would have to come back anyway and then According to what makes sense in the spirit of the VA zone. So when Peter talks about the 100 GRFA, I'm not talking about 100,000 GRFA, I'm talking about 140,000 GRFA because I think that I relied on the staff and on the town's inte- grity that I would be treated no different than anybody else in the VA zones. There's other things that are not written down. At one time, the staff said we wanted and we wanted for you to. I said all right, what fixtures do you want? They picked $1,000 in stone fixtures, $1,000 a piece, they picked 12 of them. So the last 6 years. I have never committed in writing that I'd pay for them. I have paid for it, I've installed the things, I've paid for the electricity for 6 years. Last spring for example, they came over and said we want to improve East Meadow Drive and $7,000 for you. I said what? $11,000. It was never written down, they want ahead and did it. I came back to them, I liked what I saw. It happened not to be on my pro- perty, it happened to be on town property, but I promised to pay the $11,000. I paid it. So I think, I personally am not talking about 100,000 sq. ft., I'm talking about 140,800 sq. ft. allowable bed base with the Amoco station. In my mind I'm also talk- ing about 80,000 commercial Now I don't know where the 40,000 came in from, but I just don't know where it came from. The says I can 20% of all the build- ing and that's more like 80,000 sq. ft. So that leads me up to where we are today. I think we're not asking for a variance to the extent that Peter says, we're asking for a variance, basically we're asking for a trade off between commercial and... Any questions? PEC 9/26/83 8 Dan Corcoran - Does anyone have any questions on that part of the presentation? (female voice) - Was the Amoco station zoned PA when you got your SDD? Joe Staufer - The whole property originally was zoned PA. I take that back. The whole property was under one ownership. Amoco reserved the right when the property was sold to take up the corner and leave it as a gas station. At that time, they zoned it as a service flowing with what was already there. So, had the service zoned, there are things, it basically is a gas station, most probably could be a gas station, so it's zoned for a gas station. Gordon Pierce - I'm Gordon Pierce, I'm the architect for the applicant. I'd like to explain a couple of things. In all due respect to what Peter said about us bringing the material, I guess the final draft did come to him only about 2 days prior to this meeting. We did meet on the 31st of August, the first time, with the staff and with consultants and .we went over the lst proposal. Out of that, came a number of sugges- tions. We reacted to some of those. We met again on Sept. 13th and had another review period and ever since then, we have been making some adjustments to the staff's comments. So although it's true that the final application wasn't in Peter's hands, it wasn't as if this was a whole new thing that just came to the staff and I want the planning commission to know that because otherwise it would sound like it just came in at the very last second. That's not totally true. I think there was lost of discussion. Perhaps our reaction to their comments wasn't to the extent they would like, but we - did work in their direction, we did take out a number of things that were in the initial proposal and we did decrease voluntarily with the staff. Just to quickly go over what is existing, this is phase 1, this is phase 2, phase 3 is this area here, the existing VVI, Pancake House, this is number of small hotel rooms, 48, plus condominiums, Service entrance. The property here has roughly 80- 82 parking spaces. You're familiar with way this looks when you come into Vail. The shape of the building didn't come out of necessarily the view corridor, it came out of the expertise of several hotel consultants, so rather than trying to design the build- ing totally around view corridor, it probably wouldn't have worked. Second of all, it's just no longer appropriate, because in our application we're taking the Conoco station into consideration, whereas the other one didn't take that into consideration. It's only too bad that at the time the applicant didn't have the expertise of another architect who would have shown him that with only 33,000 sq. ft. left and 200 and some rooms to be built that you could only have hotel rooms about the size of a bed and bathroom. Unfortunately that wasn't brought out. Getting into the planning of the project, the existing phase 3 building has 2 levels of parking underneath it. They PEC 9/26/83 9 enter at the present time down the ramp on the east side of the bldg. as well as thru that parking lot we just showed you, then thru a gate past the existing bldg. Upper level of parking from where you can park your car or go down to the lower level. We felt it's important to tie that parking into phase 4. We further felt that there should be another entrance and exit for automobiles and it would be nice to get it away from the development, and get it away from traffic and congestion out here. So we placed an entrance/exit for automobiles down at this end of the property so that underground, out of view, we have circulation that works around in sort of clockwise manner. It can be reversed counter-clockwise depending on traffic studies or depending on the oper- ation of the garage. As was suggested earlier, we might get into a commercial type parking structure. Joe or someone pointed out a little earlier that use of the exist- ing parking is very light, but the heaviest use is about 50% of what he's built. This operation would not be that much different. He would have a lot of excess parking. One of the staff recommendations early in the game, prior to my getting involved in the project, was that the entrance to the hotel be placed somewheres up in this area along the frontage road rather than say off in the corner or I think that was a good suggestion for a number of reasons. No. 1, by putting it over and out of the way of this intersection, it will diminish traffic impact on it, also, it permits us the ability to circulate the cars after they unload, the guests arrive, the car can either be taken from them or drive themselves just a short distance down the ramp into the parking structure. The same thing when leaving out of this side of the bldg. Just drive over to the corner & come back to the entrance, load your car and leave there. It's a very simple clockwise system. The bldg. has 2 levels of parking underneath it similar to VVIs, except that both of our levels are basically one more level lower. You come in at their upper level, then you ramp down to our first level when then comes out almost at street level here. You also could come down around to their lower level and do it one more time. Pedestrian-wise, we feel that and obviously so, that there's a great deal of traffic on East Meadow Dr. and up into VVI phases 1 and 2 in parti- cular. After that it very much dead ends at the Pancake House at the present time. Our proposal here is to create a large plaza in the back of the bldg., considerably larger than what was originally proposed. They couldn't have had half the plaza that we're suggesting. We'd like to reinforce the plaza with shops along with the traffic that comes thru the bldg., crossing the street at a controlled point here and going towards the Holiday Inn, the town offices, where we are now. There would have to be some peripheral study made for this traffic here, but we feel that this proposal is much better than what you have now. I see everyone walking down the Frontage Road, coming thru the Standard Station sometimes on this side of the road, sometimes on PEC 9/26/83 10 that side of the road. It can be really dangerous at this point. I think you could very much control it at one area & have a real pedestrian crossing at that point. We felt that•as far as servicing the entire Vail Village Inn area goes, the best place to bring service vehicles in this is back in this area where they now service the Deli and other bldgs. in phase 1 and 2 as opposed to anything up closer to the intersection or the frontage road. We felt that for the hotel there would be a double loading berth for trucks, there's room for a semi-truck to pull in forward or back up into the load- ing berth along side of say a. 6' or 8-wheel truck. 2 vehicles could be unloading at the same time. For the time being, until bldg.. 5 comes down, we would like to continue to load and unload phase 1 and 2 where they come presently. At the time phase 5 would be built there would be a new loading dock put into the phase 5 building. I think it's a rather simple, clear point, I'm not quite sure why there's any confusion on it, because we would have considerable basement storage area underneath the phase 5 building. It's a simple matter. They would come right here, where. they are presently unloading & get into phase 1 and 2. One of the major concerns of our hotel consultants had been in the area of separating loading and unloading of the hotel operation. It could become a horrible hassle for both the enterprises. They-highly recommended that you have a general loading area. We have 2 loading docks; 1 for the hotel & for Joe, of course, is no newcomer to the hotel business or to Vail. In our meetings, he - was present. I think the hotel consultant was always impressed with his remarks about how this thing really works here in our community. He really agrees wholeheartedly that this is basically the way the loading &.unloading should 'be handled for the project. We didn't develop a landscape plan for a number of reasons. It's kind of like putting the cart out in front o_f the horse I think. Don't you first have to determine where a building is-going to be and how it's going to be designed with impact on the other buildings, but basically I see 3 areas. 1 is the entrance area here. I call it the entrance area to Vail, creating as much of a green area as possible. Perhaps some of you can see the shaded area underneath it. That is the filling station. So the front of our building is from, we're showing .also a right turn lane here. We're back from this intersection 100 and some feet from our building, versus about 50 feet to the corner of the filling stations, so it'll be quite a nice green area in here. The green area would be then extended up around the corner to our entrance, then picked up again in front of the existing, phase 3, as well as down Vail Road. One of the comments from the staff from our early proposal was to move this part of the building back on the property line which we have done. We moved it back about another 15'. The second PEC 9/26/83 11 area of landscaping will be a park down off of this corner. Initially it wouldn't be as big as we'd like to see it, but it would offer a means for pedestrians to walk on the sidewalk & cut thru a nice green area to the bus stop over here. Eventually this parking would be removed. It probably would just come back into the project. The 3rd area of landscaping would be the plaza itself, which would be primarily hard- surfaced area with shops, with heavy pedestrian traffic. In that area we would have primarily just large trees. One of the things which came up which is way ahead of the game here too, is that owners contacted a man who does a lot of sculpture work & they'd like to have a fair number of sculptures within this area, perhaps sculptured garden is a long phrase, but it's something along those lines. Mr. Hiller brought along photographs which are almost a DRB issue, but anyone inter- ested in seeing that could show them to you. Dan Corcoran - Are any of them orange? Gordon Pierce - I'd like to move on. Pretty much what I've just shown you, only on a little larger scale. You can see for instance, the size of the park down here. Ano- ther side light to that, the owner has told us that they would be willing to dedicate the property to the town if the~town wanted it, or they would maintain it or do what- ever they want. If the town would like to handle it, it might give the town some sec- urity to how this would be used in the future. It would be dedicated as a park, oper- ated and maintained by the owners of the hotel or by the town, whatever. I realize that some of the things that have come up recently like a Trojan horse, against the town, but I think this is a good choice. This is the phase 5 bldg., it's non-existing, but will be there around 1997, unless something can be worked out with some people who have a long-term lease, take part of this bldg., in which case, this bldg, would come down. Phase 5 is shown by dotted line which is not unlike what was earlier recommended by Eldon Beck back in '76. The lower level of phase 5, we're suggesting some commercial off the street. This is the second level of our parking. As they come off the frontage road, come down the ramp and in here, simple automobile ramp, it's a very shallow ramp & right alonger here & back out. Or you can turn, go down to the lower level of phase 3. You've got to come out this same way. This is the plaza level. What we call in the office, elevation 93. It's virtually the elevation of the existing plaza. Swimming pool out in this area here. We're showing on this level, the continuation of shops, which is the pink color. We have some hotel operations on this level as well. We've been put- ting in some small amenities for the hotel, such as a game room, some locker rooms, ski storage. A means for getting into the swimming pool, inside the building, being able to swim outdoors, then come back in, go to the locker room in a warm atmosphere. PEC 9/26/83 12 A very small issue, but I'll bring it up here, is the skis would be handled when ..the guest arrives, the skis are separated from his luggage, they're tagged, taken down to this room by means of an elevator. When he's ready to go skiing, he doesn't have to take his skis from his room down, they're in a place, they're tagged, they're main- tained for him. He can then leave, get out to the bus system, or walk over to the slopes. The other items on this level are, we would like to have some meeting rooms which are primarily There would be a large pantry, not a restroom, but a pantry which would serve those guests. Some of them would be catered in a small amount, there might be a cook there on the site & the rest of .the storage for those meeting rooms. Off the meeting rooms would be one board room that could be set up on a continuing basis to serve luncheons for various groups that come in, break up, go into their more intense meetings. One of the difficult things to determine is where to locate the Pancake House. It may sound silly, but they have a separate lease. They're totally separate from the hotel. The consultant was very quick to point out; you can't use them as your hotel restaurant. It would be best if you wouldn't identify yourself with them. Not that they don't run a good operation, but if anything goes wrong with a guest in their rest- aurant, the guest has no recourse. For instance, if the operation was off of your lobby, everyone assumes it's the hotel restaurant. After giving it a fair amount of thought, I said maybe the thing to do is to put it on the corner, we won't face it toward the main street, we'll just have windows & sort of a facade onthe building that creates a nice atmosphere from the street corner. You won't know what's going on behind it, some sort of eating establishment, more fun to see, especially at night than the Conoco station. I think it would add to the. ambience of the town, it's more in keeping with what we have back here. The entrance to that restaurant would be on the plaza Level, flowing thru here and off the plaza, working into here. We do have a few more shops off the pedestrian way to reinforce this. On this level we also have the beginning of the hotel rooms. This is the lobby entrance off the frontage road. What we're proposing is to place the main address entrance, bellboy, the front office for the hotel all in this area. Gives us plenty of room to bring automobiles, park the bus at the same time. One of the important things in designing a hotel that was pointed out again to us by our con- sultant, it's very important to locate the lounge, or the living room of the hotel. They always talk about the front of the house, the back of the house, but this is really the front of the house, the living room of the house should be one of the best loca- tions. If you go over to the Vail Village Inn today and go upstairs above Joe's PEC 9/26/83 13 office, stand on the back deck, you get a very good feeling, it's almost the precise elevation this model is at. The views out of here are absolutely spectactular. Also, by putting that kind of a function, it gives us a chance architecturally to create a focal point within the large plaza. People coming up this way, something to look at, anybody entering the plaza area will focus in on here. There'll be a secondary pedestrian entrance from below, coming in & up some stairs into this lobby. We're proposing to move the swimming pool to the east, closer to some existing land- scaping for a couple of reasons. 1 is we would like to see the swimming pool out of there, to be replaced by something that is far more natural. (end of tape #6 of 8). Still maintain a few lap areas for swimmers, but swimming pools are a place to relax around and enjoy the sun, which I should also mention is the best location fora pool area. Sun from early morning to late afternoon, whereas opposed to somehwere down here or out in the middle of pedestrian traffic. Very briefly, going on up in the bldg. we have several levels of hotel rooms of course. There are 200 rooms. They're virtually all the same size. There are a few that, again, coming from our consultants, they highly recommended that in a luxury hotel, we have rooms that are approximately 450-500 sq. ft. each. That's where perhaps we run into a little problem with our GRFA concept. Part of the area that we would like to exchange commercial really is that we're not creating more rooms, we feel are required or allowed here, we are, we'd like somewhat larger rooms. Many of the rooms in our town are really small. Small rooms can work very well. Some of the smaller pensiones like Sonnenalp have a more of a personalized operation. When you get into luxury hotel, 150-200 rooms or better, you really do have to get into rooms that permit not just a sleeping area and a wonderfl bathroom, but a sitting area, especially in a resort community where people are staying for 3 nights to several weeks. People are demanding to have some- thing besides just a bedroom. We do have a few other rooms in the hotel which are like where people can have a cocktail party after skiing with a select group of people. We're suggesting a few open sky lights so that people coming down a hallway won't feel like they're coming down a mine shaft. Some of the hotel rooms as I men- tioned might have some odd shapes. That is due to the fact that we wanted to create certain angles into the bldg, that would enhance the park, so we turn an L-shape bldg. Eventually you just come out to a point & over. On the other hand that would destroy the opportunity between something nice on the ground, so by the corner around you come up with some odd rooms, but that works better for the site. I'd like to point out that as we get up into the higher elevations of the bldg. higher levels, the bldg, starts to slip. There's a higher part of the bldg, over here & higher part of the bldg. over there. I'll show you the model. Our reason for doing PEC 9/26/83 14 that was that we felt that the view corridor was more than just seeing mountaintops & some of the ski runs from a distance. Really the main view from the intersection, in our opinion,. is out here, rather than over here as previously suggested by We think any hotel operation with an entrance in this area, almost has to have the mass of the bldg. over there for a couple of reasons. 1 is that, that's where. most of your elevators are, where the circulation is, it's where the mass of this bldg. is. To go from 5 or 6 story bldg. down to a 2 story bldg. over here, architec- turally wasn't working. 2, even if you did a 3-story bldg., we don't think you could see any Gold Peak anyway or part of the runs. We felt it was far more important to maintain the feeling of .the mountains; the ski runs in the distance. There's some very good views over here. the ski runs that come down into the village does the same thing as originally intended. The proposal didn't take into account the Conoco station. By bringing the bldg. down low in this area to the scale of our bldg, as you see on the model, it's really very much in keeping with some of the rear bldgs. over here. I think people coming in enjoy seeing a handsome bldg. on a smaller scale here, rather than a big massive bldg. back down in this area. This is the top floor of the hotel where we get into some unusual rooms with dormers. Even fewer rooms on this level. We stepped the bldg, down in phase 3 by about a floor to get some relief from this bldg. Another thing we've done, phase 3 has a 5-story facade on the front. Our bldg. is really about 32 stories on the front of the road - here, similar to what we did at the Vail Athletic Club where you up with a fairly steep roof which is more in keeping with these bldgs., adding a number of dormers that we think will help break down the scale of the bldg., more in keeping with the rest of Vail village The section thru the bldg. in this area which is near our entrance portrayed here. This is the frontage road, coming into our lobby, which is the light same color, hotel rooms above, parking below & then the shops in pink, the plaza here. The existing phase 3 bldg. is right here. In addition there's also those mechanical rooms. We're pro- posing that dark line here, which~is the same height existing in phase 3, would be the controlling height of phase 4. We wouldn't exceed that in the development. Going away from phase 3 to the west, the bldg. then steps down. Then steps down again as it goes around the corner to an elevation something like this, which is approximately, from the street up, about a 3-story bldg. There is some confusion in the numbers, at least the way I read them. What was proposed at one time in terms of the height. The way I read it, we would be allowed, for instance, a 44' height in B area, then the use a certain benchmark. It's true that our bldg, is further forward than to what they're PEC 9/26/83 15 suggesting, which does influence the angle of looking up thru here. On the other hand, we were down 37', so I think there's some trade offs in that particular area. Where the real discussion comes in from what was proposed in terms of what we're proposing, it's just whether we're looking. for Gold Peak or over towards Riva Ridge. Coming around the corner & down Vail Road, I know Peter mentioned 80', but you were measuring from the parking structure to the peak of the roof, from the center of the parking structure, it's true, it is about 80'. If you measure from the grade outside the bldg. on Vail Road, say to the line, we're talking more about 45'. Go around the corner to th end of the bldg. from the driveway, or coming onto the line, mea- suring about 55'. So I guess it depends on where you want to measure. We talked about height just in general before. Joe pointed out earlier in his scenario, that the phase 1 and 2, for the purpose and that there should be more density in back of the project on the frontage road for a number of reasons. A portion was thoroughly studied, done for Joe at the time & I think he pointed out he couldn't get another 100 room hotel. in there. I feel that what we're proposing is really not all that out of line with what the original-intent was. This is where it sat. Our group is a little bit One of the requirements of the SDD, when we .get into various phases, suggests a little bit of administration or at least a little bit of idea of the scale of the bldg. We've done that 2 ways. This drawing, really a very quick study, not intended to be a final design, although you could certainly read an awful lot into that, this is phase 3 bldg. over here. This is where we dropped our bldg. down at least a level or so, then we pop back up. This is in line with their ridge, it comes over & drops down into, all the way down to the corner. Part of the hotel which ends up at this eleva- tion as we turn the corner. It's right in line with the 4-way stop as you come to Vail, Riva Ridge. As you come down Vail Road towards the 1st Bank or the church, towards the river, across the street from us is a Holiday House, which is slightly lower than our bldg, but it's also slightly lower down on the Vail Road. Again, they, .from what I could tell in that proposal, they were suggesting that the bldg. steps up As to the degree, I suppose that certain argument. We did it this way so that we could sat- isfy the program. We felt that the bldg, positioned in here, for those of you who were listening to me fora moment on the intersection today, really doesn't block any view. There's no ski runs in line with that, from that intersection. The ski runs on the right, left of that view from the intersection, this portion of our bldg. I think I'd like to bring in the model. The problem with the model always, is that sometimes it gets too definitive & on the other hand you've got to show quite a bit in order to eplain what you're trying to do. Also, we always view models from up PEC 9/26/83 16 here & we should be looking at them from eye level. We're portraying the bldg. with 2 colors so you can more clearly see that we're demonstrating our bldg. eave line is considerably lower than this one so it really does give you the impression of stepping down far greater than it does on straight elevation. Also permits sunlight on the street, little bit of angle towards the views. Our phase 5 doesn't fit perfectly with our scheme, only because it's a model. Our proposal is to put phase 5 on a bit of an angle. Again, it's primarily suggestion of Jeff Winston's & I picked up on it, saying it .would be nice to break the tension in that plaza. It rather became a straight, plain Jane plaza, but putting it on an angle, something that was done about 500 years ago in Venice. It really is very effective for a lot of reasons. Phase 5 steps. down to a point which is lower than phase 1 here in the corner, commercial area. Loading of vehicles is over here on this side of the bldg. or way over here on this side of the bldg. This is primarily a loading zone for passenger automobiles & charter buses. We haven't really gotten into a landscape plan. The plaza will be done with large trees. Down in this corner we'd like to something done in more natural looking, at most, maybe a water feature out here. I understand there's certain taboo on that, some people on the maintenance staff. If it's maintained by the hotel, there shouldn't be a problem. By permitting people to cross here, there is a study underway on the inter- section, pedestrian over here, get people to come thru & out into the plaza very nicely. However, if you're going in that direction, you can cross the street from down here, come thru the park, bus stop here, which is part of our proposal. We would build a bus stop here and/or they can walk around here. We're also suggesting a continuous sidewalk up around here & although there isn't a whole lot to see, the staff and I per- sonally wouldn't submit to people walking around, this part is really very dangerous, not having a sidewalk. The streets are so undefined down here & hopefully a new study will put in some nice trees out in here, that will define where automobiles should be & where pedestrians should be. We're starting to suggest, even in our proposal, a right turn lane coming around this corner. That definitely does relieve a lot of the problem in that intersection. Can you think of anything else I haven't covered so far? Fred Hiller - I'd like to read what I think is very important about the height out of the ord finance that seems to be the big here. 18.500 under section c, intent of the height limits ranges, the bldg. complex should be as low as possible. This level of detail does not tie down a precise maximum elevation. Final designs with regard to elevation would depend upon further detail study, projection for the bldg. mass, photos of the actual site conditions. The massing respects the spirit of those de- PEC 9/26/83 17 sired & final heights will be established based upon final decision. On the heights, right above that, the average height of the project shall not exceed 45'. I think it's obvious, by looking at it, that it does not exceed 45'. Gordon Pierce - Just to elaborate on that, it would take the entire project as con- ceived here, take the average height as it had been written back then, measure to the center of these walls at various points, took the average out of it, I'm sure Fred's right, you will see 45' right here. Hiller - I'd like to make a few more comments if anybody has any questions right now. Originally, had this site been zoned with the' site when Joe first had it, we would have been able to build 174,000. When the PA zoning came in, he dropped the footage down. We are proposing only to build luxury rooms, not to build anymore rooms, but in order to meet what we think is the need, we have to have a luxury room, a larger room. That's the only we're asking to do is build a larger room. You may or may not be aware of the fact that because of the Denver Hilton, because of the smaller rooms, is leaving that lease, closing down the downtown Hilton. So what we're saying is, Joe can come in here & build, I think, 327 real tiny rooms & we're asking to end up with 45 less than that at a larger room. Gordon pointed out to me, we can cut the rooms down, cut the model size of the rooms down, cut the square footage of the rooms down, get back into the GRFA, but the bldg. bulk, for instance, to cut each room down 5 feet in length, would only take 2 feet as a _ Pierce - You design a hotel room, you really have to have 14' wide. User space is 14.5 or 15, we're at 14. It also works out well with parking in the lower levels. We can have 28' base, 3 cars, etc. We're also limited by height. You can't have a room that's 4` high. You have to have a room that's roughly 8' high, you need about 2' for the struc- ture. So you have about a 10' floor height, which is a given, 14' feet's given. Work- ing with any bldg, certainly as linear as this one is, which the site fixes, so does height limitation. You end up with a longer sausage that's cut up into 14' What Fred was addressing was, if I just arbitrarily say okay, we're going to try to keep making small rooms, the heck with everything else, you chop off 5, 6, maybe 8' of these rooms, you take that off of these rooms, you're really not changing the mass appreciably. I personally think that's a big issue here. Part of it has been ad- dressed earlier. Maybe we need a better definition, 800 vs. 100' lines. He certainly is right about the GRFA. It was a bare piece of land zoned PA. It would be permitted 139,00 GRFA. With the gross area we are permitted about 85,000 sq. ft, commercial area. Where the developer's coming from is he'd like to trade about 30,000 of that commercial for 30,000 sq. ft, primarily for larger rooms, not more. We're proposing actually about 45 fewer rooms. Phase 5, which I didn't mention, is 10 condominiums, in lieu of 50 PEC 9/26./83 18 hotel rooms which are now there. Those 10 condominiums are counted as 2 units & are still 45 units below what is stated in the ordinance. Peter, to clarify what he said, is it true that the owner is permited up to 300 rooms, it doesn't say you can have 300 rooms, so that's one of the issues we're here for today too. Jamar - I would just like to say a couple of things. 1 is, I was not here at that time, but zoning, as I understand it at the time of the approval of the STP would allow 120,000 sq. ft. No. 2, at that time, there was a restriction that... Staufer - Excuse me, that clause was proposed down zoning, not the one that actually was in existence. Jamar - I think at this time it was approved, it was the 120,000. When we talked about accessory, drinking, recreational, retail steps, located within the principal structure, not occupying more than 20% of the gross residential flurry at that time, of the main structure or structures on the site. That was the specific wording that was in the PA zone at the time of this ordinance. The only change that has taken place within the last couple of years, is the-fact that it states only 10% that has been changed since 1980. So it says at the time it was 20% of the gross residential flurry, not 80,000 sq. ft. At least that's the way the staff has interpreted it, in the code, can have 20% commercial. ? - Let me add just one thing because once we got this submittal in & the arguments, this was what was said back in '76, I had the secretaries go back & try to dig up the tapes from the '76 meetings & we did find those. We should be able to go back~& listen to those tapes & listen to what was said & what everybody gave up, supposedly & what everybody got in exchange, but it was recorded on an old time, variable speed recorder, which we haven't, between last Weds. & today, been able to locate one of those to listen to it. I don't think anybody needs to make any decisions based on the fact that we don't have the ability to go back & listen to what was said & listen to what was discussed & that's another reason we're proposing to be tabled because that's some more information that we need to get. But we certainly don't even have to rely on what people recall because we do have taped record of both the planning commission hearings & the council hearings at that time. ? - This particular figure, back & forth, of 80,000 vs. 40,000, this is what you're alluding to also in your comment of 20 GRFA? ? - All these figures, what they're arguing is what they ought to have back is their PA zoning prior to the adoption of the SDD & no. 1, there seems to be a question between what they say that was & what we say that was. No. 2, our position is that certainly, in terms of giving & taking & in terms of adoption of the SDD from PA, there are some things that they were given, just as well as they gave up in terms of height restric- PEC 9/26/83 19 tions & site coverages & things like that, so those are all things that we haven't gone thru an analysis of, but really need to be done. Lamont - If I might, being the planning director in charge at that time, I think some are thinking that these SDDs were just a means to insure my professional employment, but really what we were dealing with was the evolution of ideas. The SDDs were proposed in those days because the staff was basically frustrated with problems that developed out of restriction interpretation of the ordinance. We were finding that we were getting lousy architecture, but architecture that met the strict interpretation of the codes. Also in those days we were going thru many peripheral issues, one of which Joe alluded to. The sequence really was, we went thru one down zoning in '73, that brought the 80-20 split. In '76 we were going thru another down zoning based on a capacity study where the PA was even being considered to go down another 20% which was where we came up with the 100%, the 100,000 GRFA. We knew at that point in time that there were several factors that we could rely on for controlling the project, back in those days we were much more design oriented than possibly is the case now. The whole concept for height controls, view corridors, where a lot of these ideas began to formulate. The thing that we recognized was that we didn't know what was going to be built. We didn't know there was going to be condominiums or public accommodation units. Because of the capacity studies, we were very concerned about overall population. So our ten- dency was to build smaller; if it was going to be condos & larger if it was going to - be public accommodations but we really didn't know where we were in the ballgame. So we instituted a series of other requirements, aesthetic controls, but also we relied on traditional controls in the ordinance for commercial sq. ft., & other kinds of uses within the project & basically like you saw at Gold Peak earlier in the day, let these things to you all. If you go back thru environmental impact statement which I hope all of you have been given copies of, you'll be able to establish for yourself what the issues were in those days & why the tradeoffs were being made. Key point tho, is we looked at this special development districts as negotiable. It gave us a chance in the city's standpoint to the applicant's standpoint, to sit down, look at proposal & negotiate out a resolution. I think that's really what we're all about at this point in time. Also, I think the SDDs were really an attempt to document what some call in later years, the grand vision. There was a vision in this community that Joe stated, this project is in keeping with, that is, that this community is an international resort & has to evolve qualitatively to serve the marketplace. The marketplace has been an issue which we never have until recently discussed within the chambers of government. We considere back in those days, economics was not an issue for government to be in- volved with & I still subscribe to that. I think we have known for some time, Bob Parker PEC 9/26/83 20 warned us in the early days, that if we kept building condos, we eventually were going to come up against with the problem you're confronted with right now & that's what to do with public accommodation units. I think in any analysis in the history of the evo- lution of this community, you would find people saying that you don't do PA, you don't have lodge, you're going to get in trouble. I think we're now in trouble. Parker is also a very eloquent spokesman when it comes to the fact that if many of our capacity studies, many of our down zonings, an attempt to bring valley capacity into quality with mountain capacity, we knew when we submitted these down zonings, if the councils didn't go along with the planning commission, we would arrive at a point in time where bed base exceeds the mountain capacity. We're now at that point in time. We still have 30% to 20% to develop in this valley. The issue is coming up again. Forest Service is allowing, at least studying the expansion of this mountain. So there are all kinds again, peripheral issues that have ballooned because we haven't dealt with them, that you end up with proposals like this that respond to a changing urban fabric, changing values. If we continue to go back to strict interpretation in these ordinances, the decisions that have been made along the way, I think we're making a mistake. I think you have to go back to the grand vision. You have to look at what is proposed for this project & make your basis on that. I think what we were primarily concerned with in those days is the mass impact of that project on the intersection. Again, back to the discussion today about Gold Peak. Gold Peak, if you do as the staff suggests, and down base area, we submit would attract traffic into an area that we don't want. We think it's better to keep parking on the frontage road & not introduce it into the Gold Peak area. I think if you focus the image that the psychological aspect of peoples' decision making as they head towards the ski area, the ski slopes they see the closest. There are arguments other than looking strictly at Gold Peak to evaluate the view corridor. The view corridor grew out of our problem solving back when we came to the parking structure. There's a notch in that parking structure to maintain a view corridor from the interstate so people can get a glimpse of the village as they go by. The same concept is applied to this project. We did not target a specific view on those development plans. Again, in the evolution of ideas, the change in staff, there are many different interpretations to be made from general language. But the reason those were put in there is to broaden the negotiation process, uncover every rock that we can & see by today's standards & values, when we're ready to build a project, what makes sense. Dan Corcoran - I think as large a magnitude as this project is, I think before we con- tinue to go on, on and on, I think it's beneficial to your polling the design commission, if they feel, they have enough information presented to them today & if they think that PEC 9/26/83 21 the staff presented enough information in a timely manner to act on this thing. I'll start with Jim. Jim Viele - Personally, I would need more time to review the study. As you say, it's a project of very substantial magnitude. There are lots & lots of issues that I feel that I would need to study before I could make a decision. Duane - I think this has been a very good presentation, it's been very thorough. I do however, feel extremely uneasy making any decisions under the advice of the staff to table this discussion. Questions have come up specifically sq. footage. As Joe Staufer alluded to earlier, he said I don't know where I got that figure 40,000, right away I see something there a need for discussion specifically to find out where that figure came from. But until we have resolved some of these considerations, I would prefer to see some further review of this on part of the staff & once they say definitely, I think we'll be in a good position to go with it. Diane Donovan - Also, and I'm probably missing something here, that's why I wouldn't vote today, but I don't understand why we have a special development district which is referred to in here that: certain terms have been made that will continue in full force and effect in terms, conditions & agreements. I don't understand why we have that, which is definitely a give & take situation. I know everyone was sweating blood back when it was done. This supposedly an overall comprehensive plan for the whole site, now all of a sudden we want to go back to sort of PA, all the rights & privileges of the PA District. It seems to me you're asking for the best of both worlds, which I don't quite understand. Joe Staufer - May I answer that? One is, that we're the site. We're bringing in The big tradeoff originally, that instead of the bldg. here, you get this & this. The other big trade off was that we committed, all the parking, 300 spaces underground. By the time we are thru, there will be no surface parking. Those were the big tradeoffs in the beginning. I'm saying there was a ques- tion on the GRFA. I was misled. Nobody did it deliberately. Nobody said, I'm not accusing anybody. I was given to understand that it's not a problem, I have 300 hotel rooms in anytime. We are asking for, in this proposal, is that we get maybe less units than we got to, but more luxurious units.Aspen problem today is that isn't a single hotel in Aspen. You go over there in January during the winter season. You get into any restaurant. But that's neither here nor there. The trade- off for us, that we committed to all parking underground & didn't build a big building down here, 5-story. The present trade off... Hiller - We're going to make that a park. We'll dedicate it if you wish, We've got these art objects committed here to put in the plaza, maybe in the front. We're going PEC 9/26/83 22 to make that park an entrance to Vail. This park down here is not committed to go in until phase 5, 1997. We're going to put almost all of it in. We have to keep 8 parking spaces because we're committed to leases. We're going to build 45 fewer units, than we can possibly build. We're going to have surface parking spaces. We're going to trade 30,000 sq. ft. for commercial space for additional GRFA going to luxury rooms to make the rooms larger. The EIS report says that we should have 200 parking spaces for the entire 300 room hotel. The zoning says we should have 306. We figure that has risen it's supposed to be 200, we're going to build 300. It's going to be, these units are going to be sold, condominiumized hotel units, people can only use them 2- 4 weeks a year. There's going to be a double transfer tax We're going to build some more employee housing, we're going to double the plaza area from the original plans of the SDD6. We won't let any of the potential uses that could be on the site that could be there, make it a park., make it a statement of the town, ourselves. We're going to reduce the traffic at the 4-way stop. We're eliminating the Conoco station & put in a hotel which So we're just asking a tradeoff to be able to build. We have to build rooms. We're asking to build luxury rooms instead of - There's one other point I want to bring up so there's no misconception. I'm reading from the ordinance that was in effect at the time which is the old newspaper copy which some of you may remember: Lodges, including accessory, eating, dining, recreational, . retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 20% of the total gross floor area, not GRFA, but total gross floor area. So by the time you add up all the gross floor area here, then the number that we're really speaking about, the GRFA figure, God knows where that interpretation came from, but I think that's something we have to resolve where that evolved from, whether it was in fact adopted as part of the SDD, which in my view didn't, because we're relying on these sections, rather than on subsequent sections. So again, there's some unclear areas here which I think we have to discuss. Diane Donovan - I still don't understand. I understand what you said, but I still don't understand, to me this is no longer an I think we're changing all the rules. Dan Corcoran - Do you feel you have enough information presented on this to make a de- cision on this? Trout - Absolutely. Yes. Dan Corcoran - I can't vote on it. So it's inappropriate for me to say anything. Trout - I would like to make a few followup remarks here. Every now and then a certain combination of people, thoughts, times, circumstances, come together to produce some- thing of very special quality & very special nature. And those things we call grand PEC 9/2b/83 23 and those things we call great. The issue in the final analysis, really hasn't to do with the technology of these books that are very thick in front of us. They're there to support & encourage that sort of thing to take place. I think at this point in time we're looking at something, for that special circumstance, phenomena has come together & I'm speaking about all of the applicants & the end product that we're looking at. It takes great bldgs. to make a great town & if we don't Took at this & call it great, we certainly can .call it grand. And if we are going to reach a point of being a grand community, a grand resort, it will be reflected, not just in those very nice things that we do in our planters & flowers which I dearly love, but it will also be those very special bldgs. that come forward. I think this community is extremely proud of Cascade Village & the quality of grandness that it has. Before us today we have another similar project & it would be a shame, I hope this town, very sincerely, is up to this quality you are offering to give to this community and I don't think anyone on this board, I'll let all the other folks speak for themselves, but you have given us a grand product & that I would like to applaud you for. I hope we don't pick it apart & pick it away. I have a lot of little thoughts, little things in the architecture, but that's a matter of a DRB issue & again, I would like to personally thank you for the quality of the product that you brought to us. Dan Corcoran - I think the consensus of the board, Gordon & I will be abstaining, told there was not adequate information provided today to make a decision. I personally, I would strongly recommend, because of the scope & the scale of this, that a joint meeting of the town council & this board be set up so that you don't proceed merrily along in your satisfying this board, you go forward to council & they're totally of the opposite opinion & they say go back to planning commission, I think, in my personal opinion, I really think. it's a significant impact, the major intersection into town & I think that the council will look at it hard, just as this board is and trust to look at it hard. I think we ought to set up a joint meeting to review the aspects of this with some more specific answers from the staff as to what is going on, some documentation of what went on from those tapes. (End of Tape #7 of 8.) With a joint meeting. I just think you could be going round & round & round. You could come thru here 4 times, go up to council & that's it. And yet we had no input from them as to what the hell they wanted to see. Because of the location & the scale, I really think it should be tabled. ?-How do you set up a joint meeting? Corcoran - I don't know. The staff could tell you. ?-I think it could be a meeting, but it would have to still be a public hearing, since the public hearing process started. That would be the planning commission's public PEC 9/26/83 24 hearing, but since the public hearing process has started, you have to have an offi- cial public hearing planning commission. ?-At the next meeting we could request it. Corcoran - Would it have to be the next regular scheduled meeting, or could it be a special scheduled meeting with just this item on the agenda? As long as it's already in the process, it could be published with a special hearing on it. ?-The next meeting probably has more items on the agenda already than we had today. ?-At the next meeting I'll be out of town, 24th of Oct. ?-All the required materials I don't think enough time with Larry Eskwith, I don't think legally we could vote on it. I would suggest that the 17-day review period doesn't even start until the application is in, certainly tabling it to the next sched- uled meeting. Corcoran - Joe said he wouldn't even be here until the next scheduled meeting, so you're really talking a month before we'd be back with a schedule meeting of this board. Maybe you could. research, since it's already in the process, could it be a special meeting of this board with the council, public invited of course. ?-The 24th would`be a normal meeting of the planning commission, just have the council be there. Corcoran - I think it's too important not to, myself. Joe Staufer - I'll tell you what our problem is. This Conoco site is subject to ap- provals, so if we don't get that, the whole project is, you might as well forget it. We can't build Hotel rooms around the Conoco site. If next spring we have no commitment one way or the other, the Pancake House, in terms of their lease, are going to refurbish & they already told me they want to spend $200,000-$300,000 in refurbishing the place. Once I do that, we can get the project occupied for 10 years. I have no more right for 10 years to touch them. So back here in 1997, the lease runs, and I told them that when we went into the special development district that Bldg. 5 has to go down & those are problems we face. ? - Do you see any problem of getting everything in by the 6th of Oct.? ? - What do you mean by everything? Hiller - These 3 things here? EIS? (Right) I believe that that doesn't have to be in with the application. Do you believe that it has to be in with the application? ? - How do we review it? Joe Staufer - We have an environmental impact statement but I don't think... Hiller - We'll go over the stuff. Whatever you want will be by the 6th of Oct. ? - Then it would work for the 24th. PEC 9/26/83 25 Corcoran - The applicant has requested that we table this item until our Oct. 24th scheduled meeting. Do we have a motion on that? Duane Piper - Yes. Corcoran - A motion from Piper to table to the Oct. 24th meeting. Second? Donovan - Second. Corcoran - Second by Donovan. Those in favor of tabling, do by raising your hand. I feel that it's not a conflict to table and I'm sure Will is opposed because of the reason he's already stated. Four in favor of tabling, one abstained because he's presenting it. Will did not raise his hand in favor, so I assume he did not want to table for reasons he's already stated. He was ready to vote today. I do think that the booklet that we received, I won't be here to look at it on the 24th, is a very good start on numbers that have been presented by the applicants to be matched up with the numbers that must exist on the town's files somewhere to resolve the differences. I hope we can do that next week. I look forward to that. ? - This may also be Dan Corcoran's last meeting with us & I'd like to say from the staff that I think he's been one of the most positive contributors to this town in the last 6 to 7 years and that we all owe him a great deal.. (Applause). Corcoran - We do have one more item. That is the appointment of a DRB member & since I think Gordon will go to the other side of the table, he should be appointed. We do need to consider who's going to be the next DRB meeting of the planning commission and- I know at one time Betsy had a schedule of whose turn it was. I think it may have been my turn, so whoever was after me the last time around, is probably due again. I guess the next person might be Will or Jim Morgan, but I think it's Morgan's turn since he isn't here. Do we have a motion to appoint somebody to the DRB. Motion by Piper, seconded by Jim Viele to appoint Jim Morgan to DRB. Those in favor of that motion raise hour hand. Those opposed. ? - It is Morgan's turn because he follows me. _.. ~ ,/ _ .. i _. ~~"! i i I. ~~~~.~ l~ ~~~ .r.~ ~~~ ~~'~' -:R HAND DELIVERED 304 Bridge Street Vail, CO. 81657 Phone: 476-4303 October S, 1983 TO THE HONORABLE TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF VAIL, VAIL, COLORADO: Dear Council Members: The undersigned is the Vice President and Manager of the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, and respectfully requests your consideration of and favorable action at a Public Hearing before your body with regard to the following request. You are probably aware the Szechwan Lion Restaurant is located on Bridge Street in the Village on the lower floor of the Red Lion Inn Condominiums. At the present time, it is necessary to enter the Restaurant by passing through what is commonly referred to as a "mini-park". It is my understanding the mini-park is, technically, located on private property, i.e., a portion of the common area of the Red Lion Inn Condominiums. We have approached the Condominiums Association, and they do not object to our request to use this area as a patio for the Restaurant (Please see the attached consent of the Red Lion Inn Condominiums Association). In short, our proposal would be to place four tables in the mini-park area and to serve food and beverage to those desiring such service. In order to comply with the State and local liquor laws, it would be necessary to place a fence and gate along the western edge of the proposed patio area (Please see the attached sketch). We wish to emphasize that we would not be eliminating the public activity of this area. That is to say, the Town's present understanding of the use of the area is as a place where the general public may stop and rest, using the existing two benches and bench area around the lamp post. We are sure you are aware that virtually all of the restaurants in the Village core area have a patio facility, including our immediately adjacent neighbor, the Red Lion Inn Restaurant. We are presently under a hardship by virtue of our location, i.e., the lower level, and the extreme setback of our main entrance from the thoroughfare. Fur- ther, we have had numerous requests from patrons requesting patio type service. Fur- ther, we have conducted a survey of the amount of use of the patio area in its present form. Our survey indicates there is very little use and/or demand for this area in its present form (Please see the attached survey). We would also note that the few people who do use this area use our restroom facilities, which are not open to the public. Said facilities are for the benefit of the patrons and staff of our establishment. Though we believe that the present use of the patio area is well intentioned and a sound concept, as a practical matter, it is not effective and we believe our proposal is a better and more effective use of the area. f In summary, then we request the Town Council permit the Szechwan Lion Restaurant to place four tables in the subject area, erect an appropriate fence and gate not to ex- ceed a height of 3 1/2', and to permit the service of food and beverage to the general public in accordance with all local and State laws and subject to the condition that the area be continued to be maintained as a quasi-public area where the general public may rest on the existing benches and/or tables at no charge. Please advise when the Council will consider this matter at a Public Hearing. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, SZECHWAN LION CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC. r-'-~,' By: --/ Tan, Vice President PT/ca Enclosures cc: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Community Development Department, Town of Vail -2- v TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Red Lion Inn Condominiums Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation which is responsible for the administration of the land and building commonly known as Red Lion Inn Condominiums, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, has no objection to the use of the common element within the condominium property known as the "mini-park" by Szechwan Lion Chinese Restaurant, Inc., so long as said entity is a tenant of the condominium property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Szechwan Lion shall comply with all terms and conditions of the Declaration of Covenants of the Condominium, the Articles and Bylaws of this Association, and any rules and regulations of the Association. 2. Szechwan Lion shall comply with all laws, rules and regulations promulgated by any governmental authority, including but not limited to the Town of Vail, Colorado. 3. Szechwan Lion shall protect and hold harmless the condominium property and/or the Association and the TowI1 of Vail, and the Landlords of said property from any and all. ].i:ability resulting from the use of the mini-park by Szechwan Lion. THE RED LION INN CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation B y : / 11(':(l ~Uti''~/rjl/~ f~NN~'x A ,..__. ,,,'~ ,, r ~ ~: /~j-_~ -- _ . '~-. ~~;- ~. /7 ~, {-; -,-_=_~ `` oa ., 0~HdJ ~Sd -LO ~c'~ C~ cal -'-~~ • ~ :• ~ I ~ `~1- - tit-~ ~~~~'¢":.. ~~: ~~~ ~ •. ' • _~? F ~N ~v~ ~/ L ~ U N 3c4 '1~21~G-E VA(L (~ X5-7-"f~Cl~'p/~~~: Sr /1~lN~x ~. ' _, ~: -~ -- _ ``~ ;~ f .~ ' t r I, j' i . ~~' I ;y"':- ~ i ._i i ~ ~- ~ ~ .---_ -_--- - -- --_I , , . . ---------- ---~ ) I ~ ~ . ~ I ~ i i .1-~. / i Y, 1 ~~ ,,~ r~ ~~- .__-_-- ---_~__ _ _ _~ ._ __~____ar_~ __ -___~__ _ _._J___.__-~ ._____ -- ,__ ~~ _~ // 7 \~-_. __..°\ ,~ I J A I i ~ , .`1~ __ ~~ ~` ~ ~ ~~~1~ _ ~~, ~, ,, ,. \ ~ Jam- /~_ . ~ ~•.`t,,`,,, ~ ,`\ ~ / 1! ~-, \ ' S7 t ~ L Ci ~!L h Y ~~ sTATis-rrc Nu~lPf,~ Dt ,t'x;~7~n~ us/~v~T M~N!-f~f~~?~... T ,~ `~ _. l ~ A ~r ~ Ti M ~ --l,v. TIPfF_ -or!T 11Jo. of ('~~-~~~J D A T ~ i TiMF_ -l~v T1~dF--G~~~~ ~~'a, ~`F ~~'= I o ~ ~,~ ( ~ ='" ,, ~ rt ~ e r ~_ ~ //- /;, ., .~_ .. ~.~ ~ ~ ., ~~ ' . ~ ~. _ ~ ~ , _ , .~ . - ~. ~ ~ _ ~.. r R ~... - / ~, ~ .~. ~ ~~ I ~, /. ~... -: ~, , ......p f+ 1. ~ ~` ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ V'~ ._.... .. ...__........_._ ._... .. .. __.. ............._.. .. ..... Y_ _...... _,... A 1~_~~~( ._... _...... ..~. .....~_. ~...__..._._ . 777 (/~\,//' / ~? ~ y F ' i "~ ~ _... _..__ y ... ._...__.._....._ _ _. ~ ....._____. _~ _ _ .__ __....___. ._.-_~ . __. ._ - -- ~ .~ ~ ; ~ ~. ~ ;---~ r q, ' ~, ` 7 i ~ ~ ~~. 1 I N ... _~___.~_ ._.__.,,--.__.__._..-- ................ _._..._ - r --- -- ._.. ~ ,,...F _ _ ~ , \ _' 1 ~.. t- - ----- .. .~. i ~J ..... .. ,~ - ..___ >. .,._. Y / ..yam ...._...~.~ ~.~ • _ ~ -~,; .__._... t _.~_.__ ` "~' ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ,. ~ ._. ~~ ~ , . ,, ~ ~ -~ ~, d ~ > _ .. .~ ,° i - .- ti _ ~ (~' ~ • ~.. 7r.. .{_ ~ ~...~~_.~. ."fix! >~- ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ("' r ~ rte, t - STA ~IS~/C n~uMr~~,e o~ ~-~r-~}~~,~/ us/~cr M1N~-~~~~~. ~~ ~ ~ A T 1f 1 I ~ •-_• t. JfI~III"'fff.+I""/// J r JY'k y,, ,'~ .. `~~ ~~\~_ J ~~ ~~~ a~' ~. ,~'~! ~ __ - '~1 M E --lN. --- __..._-- ---_. TI MF.-0uT .____..___~. _......._..._.,~__ No. OF pF~~OC1 _____,...._~___.____ 7_.________... _~._ _ __ D A- T ~.. i 7/ME -IN _.__M_ .. _. _ . 7tP~~--UU~ A/o, G~F PF~.S ~ ~ ~ ; \ ~ \ , .._~, ....~ ~4 ~.~~-.~w~.~ ~ 1. .. ~.... .~ _ . .. ... ~.... ....... ~.... . . . .r.. . .....~.....~_~_...-.~.....__~..~....~~.__ - t .. ~ . ~.~~ ~ ~ ~. . . fff~~~ C,~ ,w ~(~, ~fp~J ~uK'~ ~ ~' ~f M• 1 ~ L . .___.. ... _....~. ~...~._. ~ .._-~ .__ t' 1 . ~' ' °"~ { ~ ~._~__~_r_~_.~. a! / ~.,t t1~ ~~}.. _ /(ii~~1 ~ ~~~ d ~ .:.~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ d. S' ~7 ~, i . ~ i -~'~,~i ~_,__. 1 y .... _. .- ---- --- ~ ---a~f ~' I, ~~ C --- . Ma. n ~- ~K~~ ~ ~ _ - r --._._.___..-.._-._ V___,.____._._......_... ._ ... ~ N ~. ~~' ~ _ , r ._~. .___ __---_,__ ~s ~. ~~. ~ _ _..._ 3 z E .__ -: ----. ~ F i --_- .....__._.. i __._____ _ i i ~ __z___ ~ ___ _ ____. ._._..__..._~...________.V . - --__._-- ( . f ._..... _.._.._.___ _._ _____. __._ ___ _ -'---._._ .... 1 i __ STA7'IS-t'IC N11~0I~F,e D~ J'.1~~'1C~~ ~/S//e'C' L~'_ ~r tC~r9 /t/ .~ r e/~' /~'e~ ~ ~,_ ~i ~ ~~ .~~9- ~~ ~ 'j~rMr,Y- No. of nt",~.~rrl __._ _F ..~,~. ~/ i 'TI ~i~ ~ ~~ `7' ~_ 'v`,~, rF PF~._< ._ . - _ - . r ~ --~ ------ - ; / ~/ ~J, (- + a- ` , .__._- ~) ____L~._3___._ ~___.__._ ___1 _. - -- _ _ . _ _ .. --_ _._ ~ !i ------ ; , ~ old / ~ ~ 9 s~-T_ _..~___ ____.__-_~_..,_..._~ _._._..~_~_._~_.,__._ ___ _~..__~.._._.._.__.... ._ ~.~ .~_-- _ .. ~ .. _ __~ __ ___ __ . _ - _____ <, ,_ ~ - ._- ---_.._._ i a ; ~., _. - ~ t~y ~. ., . ~ ~ , ~ ~~ j ~ ~'~ ~ .. ..-........ ..._.__ _..._.._.- ---___ '~® I i o~ _.~.__1--~ ._..___ E > ,~ t r _ .. a ~ ._Lo ~_ ~~ a,.~". _._ r. ..... ____ `_.._. ` ~ ~ 111 ~ ~~ D~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ._ ~__..,... ` 1 ~ ~ ~__._.E_,,._~._~._..- ~._.._.__...._...u -- -~ _. ~ --a ~ 7 ~ pp i ~ _.__..L ~~ ~ ~' € _. . ~ ~ ~. T J ~ ~~ ~ t d ` ~ ~ ----I __._~__.._.I-------~..~-__.__---~---- 5~_---- ~I (~` .~ _~-- --~_ _ .~z:~s`~_ z _ ~, ~ .~-- ~ P ~ __ ~ - ~-- --- _- -- ----._ ....._ ~ ~ ! ~ _---.---- .~ ,.~ a ~~ ~ ~~ - _ ..__ .,. .__ _ ~ - ~_J..,...~.5~ -- t ~~ ~ ~ ~ , a~~ ~,~ ~,. ----.-- S7A7'1S~'IC N1/pll~F,~ Dt:. ~'l~~'l~i~/ l/S/~D'( ~"~~ ~- ... _.._ _!.__ .~ __..____... ....._ .. ____....._r__.__._______ 7._ ~.{ ' i ' I ' ~ ~ - .._._ . - -._. __ - ---- ~- - -- --~ - ` ~~ ~ V~._._..~ _z_°.~_7e.-.- _~_.l._._~s.~_____.____Z _.. ____.__ ~ t z 8 ~. ~ ____ ~i-----~----L..- I ~_y__V ..z I ~_.._~_____.._....._.. __..__. .____ I _ l_. _ _. ~ ,I . ~ _. --1=~-~-- ~--_ _~ __.._?--------_--t--_ ~ ~ -.-_-- z---- _.._ ~ s ~ ' .--_._.~_._ . ____ ~ ~ E l.____ ....._ __.._ _ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ Z .. w. _ ~ _.~.. ~._.__ _ . _._.. _.__l _ ... , _,_.._-._ ...._ . _ _ . _.__ - .._. _.. _-....._._- ---- ------ -.- -- ~ - ---- -- _ ........_. _.:___.3._._~._a.,, _ .. _ ~ ~ .. z ._ .. ...:........... .. ~.._ 12-0~. __ . Z T t b r ~~~ ` . _ _ .. E. •---..___---..----__-_.-- . os S ~ ~I~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. 7 .._. _._ __.... . _ --. --- --- _ _-- - - _ . _ __ . ~ _2-_lq--. --- -- - _ ___~._L__ss, _ . ~ . ~-~ . _.. _. _ -~-- -- _ __ _ ._ ~ a I - - :. ., M ....__.. .._._.... _ ....__... ~_.__ _. ..2~.~5- ! `- d ^ ~-- ..__. I_ ~ .~s~.__-_- _. 1 ~ ~_-h-- --~~_- ---t ~--_:.. ~3. __ ~ _..- f ~ o; ~ _ ~- a._ ,~ _~.. _..._____,_ ~ s ~ . 3 ~~~~~ ~ q ! O~i ~ ~ Z. ~~ j______.__ _ _-- - -- : __. .~___ __ . ____.___--___________ ~_______ ~ a=~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~ I q _ . _. - ~ ~ ~~ ~ - . S7A~'~s-~tc NuMpF,~ D~ ~'F~'.S"09~ llS/!vl . .~~~ ~ _ __ _... ~+~ __._._____.___._~ - ~~}~~ . _ __~._.~~._._„_ _._. _ ~tMLr ~ . _~~___~__ _._____.__._._ ~I o. DF ('E~~t~r~ __v__.___.___ ,~ . Z~~9 D~7~ . ~/~'~'r``~ ~'s~. OF Pf~S ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ .__._ ~.~o f ~. r r i ~ z 4 I I . 1 ~ i Th ~-? ~q ~ ~ a I 1 z _. _ .._.____ . . . .__ ___ ..._ _. ___._ .------- _ __ ~ _ __ ___-- ?-~ ~ . ._ _....-- ------._ _... _ _ ._____ _ C --... ~ Z. , . -- ---- - - --- - _ ,~ ~ ls Z ~ . __ .. __ ----------_ . _------._._ -_ ....1--- ~ ~ ~. ~z..~.~a. , ~ ~._._.~..._ ' i c ~ ~ 1 i _ ~..__ ._____. ` .__...._ ....._ _ ._. __ ~ .___~._ of ____.___ f 1--,~.3.-_- , ...__.... .... _ ~----...__._.~. ~--....._..... --._.~_..._. ~. t _..._____~----___.___ _____.. _ ._.. _..._... . ~.--__-----.. f .. .... ..._._ _,__.__ ~ tl _ ~ ~~. ,~~ ~~/ ! ~ ~3 ~ ~.. f 1 ` ~ 4 w 1 Y jf$ f ~~__ .. ~~~~ ~~~~ ies Inc. October 13, 1983 Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Co. 81657 Re: Appeal of Planninq & Environ- mental Commission Decision October 10, 1983 Dear Mayor Slifer and Members of the Council, Lodge Properties Inc. hereby appeals the October 10, 1983 decision of the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission wherein that body denied our application for Exterior Alterations and P-4odification for The Lodge at Vail. This application covered what we refer to as the International Wing and contained a dwelling unit, lodge rooms, retail space, conference facilities and other modifications to the property owned by Lodge Properties Inc. Very truly yours., Lodge Properties Inc. by Vice Pres EHD:hcd 174 East Gore Creek Dri~~e Fail, Colorado 81657 303-476-5011 "Telex 45-0375 -~ .~ ~ I ~'~\ ~> -s -~. ~i~ti.~~~a ~--: ~~rT. ~. ii K ~ . .~. ~3'.. . ~ ~~ir ` V -~ ~~ ~.i' _